Civrevdigests Midterms

CIVREV DIGESTS MIDTERMS (DEAN DEL CASTILLO)
When laws become effective

Tanada v. Tuvera
Facts: Invoking the people's right to be informed on matters of public concern
(Section 6, Article IV of the 19! "hilippine #onstitution$ as %ell as the principle that
la%s to be valid and enforceable must be published in the &fficial 'a(ette or
other%ise effectivel) promulgated, *oren(o +, -anada, Abraham ., Sarmiento and
+ovement of Attorne)s for /rotherhood, Integrit) and 0ationalism, Inc, (+abini$ seek
a %rit of mandamus to compel 1uan #, -uvera (in his capacit) as 23ecutive Assistant
to the "resident$, 1oa4uin Venus (in his capacit) as 5eput) 23ecutive Assistant to the
"resident$, +el4uiades ", de la #ru( (in his capacit) as 5irector, +alaca6ang
7ecords &ffice$, and .lorendo S, "ablo (in his capacit) as 5irector, /ureau of
"rinting$, to publish, and or cause the publication in the &fficial 'a(ette of various
presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, e3ecutive
orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders,
Issue: 8hether publication in the &fficial 'a(ette is not a sine 4ua non re4uirement
for the effectivit) of la%s %here the la%s themselves provide for their o%n effectivit)
dates
Held: 0&, 'enerall), publication in the &fficial 'a(ette is necessar) in those cases
%here the legislation itself does not provide for its effectivit) date 9 for then the date
of publication is material for determining its date of effectivit), %hich is the fifteenth
da) follo%ing its publication 9 but not %hen the la% itself provides for the date %hen
it goes into effect, -his is correct insofar as it e4uates the effectivit) of la%s %ith the
fact of publication, Article : of the 0e% #ivil #ode, ho%ever, does not preclude the
re4uirement of publication in the &fficial 'a(ette, even if the la% itself provides for the
date of its effectivit), -he clear ob;ect of the such provision is to give the general
public ade4uate notice of the various la%s %hich are to regulate their actions and
conduct as citi(ens, 8ithout such notice and publication, there %ould be no basis for
the application of the ma3im <ignorantia legis non e3cusat,< It %ould be the height of
in;ustice to punish or other%ise burden a citi(en for the transgression of a la% of
%hich he had no notice %hatsoever, not even a constructive one, .urther, publication
is necessar) to apprise the public of the contents of regulations and make the said
penalties binding on the persons affected thereb), -he publication of la%s has taken
so vital significance %hen the people have besto%ed upon the "resident a po%er
heretofore en;o)ed solel) b) the legislature, 8hile the people are kept abreast b) the
mass media of the debates and deliberations in the /atasan "ambansa 9 and for the
diligent ones, read) access to the legislative records 9 no such publicit)
accompanies the la%=making process of the "resident, -he publication of all
presidential issuances <of a public nature< or <of general applicabilit)< is mandated b)
la%, "residential decrees that provide for fines, forfeitures or penalties for their
violation or other%ise impose a burden on the people, such as ta3 and revenue
measures, fall %ithin this categor), &ther presidential issuances %hich appl) onl) to
particular persons or class of persons such as administrative and e3ecutive orders
need not be published on the assumption that the) have been circulari(ed to all
concerned, -he publication of presidential issuances <of a public nature< or <of
general applicabilit)< is a re4uirement of due process, It is a rule of la% that before a
person ma) be bound b) la%, he must first be officiall) and specificall) informed of its
contents, "residential issuances of general application, %hich have not been
published, shall have no force and effect, >o%ever, the implementation?enforcement
of presidential decrees prior to their publication in the &fficial 'a(ette is an operative
fact, %hich ma) have conse4uences %hich cannot be ;ustl) ignored, -he past cannot
al%a)s be erased b) a ne% ;udicial declaration that an all=inclusive statement of a
principle of absolute retroactive invalidit) cannot be ;ustified,
Garcillano v. House of Representatives
.acts@ -he >ello 'arci tapes came out,-he) allegedl) contained the "residents
instructions to #&+2*2# #ommissioner Virgilio 'arcillano to manipulate in her favor
results of the :AAB presidential elections, -hese recordings %ere to become the
sub;ect of heated legislative hearings conducted separatel) b) committees of both
>ouses of #ongress,
&n 1une C, :AAD, >ouse +inorit) .loor *eader .rancis ', 2scudero delivered a
privilege speech, setting in motion a congressional investigation ;ointl) conducted b)
respondent >ouse #ommittees, 0/I 5irector 7e)naldo 8)coco, Att), Alan "aguia
and the la%)er of former 0/I 5eput) 5irector Samuel &ng submitted to the >ouse
#ommittees seven alleged original tape recordings of the supposed three=hour taped
conversation, After prolonged and impassioned debate b) the committee members on
the admissibilit) and authenticit) of the recordings, the tapes %ere eventuall) pla)ed
in the chambers of the >ouse,
&n August !, :AAD, the hearings %ere suspended indefinitel), 0evertheless, the)
decided to prepare committee reports based on the said recordings and the
testimonies of the resource persons,
'arcillano then filed a petition for prohibition and in;unction, %ith pra)er for a -7&
(the first of the t%o petitions in this case$, asking that the respondent >ouse
#ommittees be restrained from using these tape recordings, >e also asked that the)
be stricken off the record of and that the >ouse desist from further using the
recordings, -he >ouse discussion and debates on the 'arci case then stopped,
-%o )ears after, Sen, *acson delivered a privilege speech reviving the issue, -he
speech %as referred to the Senate #ommittee on 0ational 5efense and Securit),-he
follo%ing da), in plenar) session, a length) debate ensued %hen Senator 7ichard
'ordon aired his concern on the possible transgression of 7epublic Act (7,A,$ 0o,
B:AA
1
(An Act to "rohibit and "enali(e 8ire=-apping$ if the bod) %ere to conduct a
legislative in4uir) on the matter, &n August :C, :AA, Senator +iriam 5efensor=
Santiago delivered a privilege speech, articulating her considered vie% that the
#onstitution absolutel) bans the use, possession, repla) or communication of the
contents of the >ello 'arci tapes, >o%ever, she recommended a legislative
1
ECF
An Act to "rohibit and "enali(e 8ire -apping and &ther 7elated Violations of the
"rivac) of #ommunications and for &ther "urposes,
Page 1 of
51
investigation into the role of the Intelligence Service of the A." (ISA."$, the
"hilippine 0ational "olice or other government entities in the alleged illegal
%iretapping of public officials,
&n September 6, :AA, petitioners Santiago 7anada and &s%aldo Agcaoili, retired
;ustices of the #ourt of Appeals, filed a "etition for "rohibition %ith "ra)er for the
Issuance of a -emporar) 7estraining &rder and?or 8rit of "reliminar) In;unction,
docketed as ',7, 0o, 19:D, seeking to bar the Senate from conducting its
scheduled legislative in4uir), -he) argued in the main that the intended legislative
in4uir) violates 7,A, 0o, B:AA and Section !, Article III of the #onstitution,
-he #ourt didnGt issue the in;unctive %rit and Senate hearings took place,
Issues@ 1, 8&0 'arcillanoGs petition for prohibition should be granted,
:, 8&0 -he Senate cannot be allo%ed to continue %ith the conduct of the 4uestioned
legislative in4uir) %ithout dul) published rules of procedure, in clear derogation of the
constitutional re4uirement,
>eld@ 1, 0&,
:, 0&H (ItGs obvious %ith the %a) itGs phrased$
7atio@ 1, ItGs alread) moot and academic, -he recordings %ere alread) pla)ed in the
>ouse and heard b) its members, -here is also the %idel) publici(ed fact that the
committee reports on the >ello 'arci in4uir) %ere completed and submitted to the
>ouse in plenar) b) the respondent committees,
:, Section :1, Article VI of the 19C #onstitution e3plicitl) provides that the Senate or
the >ouse of 7epresentatives, or an) of its respective committees ma) conduct
in4uiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure,
-he re4uisite of publication of the rules is intended to satisf) the basic re4uirements
of due process, "ublication is indeed imperative, for it %ill be the height of in;ustice to
punish or other%ise burden a citi(en for the transgression of a la% or rule of %hich he
had no notice %hatsoever, not even a constructive one, 8hat constitutes publication
is set forth in Article : of the #ivil #ode, %hich provides that la%s shall take effect
after 1D da)s follo%ing the completion of their publication either in the &fficial
'a(ette, or in a ne%spaper of general circulation in the "hilippines,
-he Senate 7ules of "rocedure 'overning In4uiries in Aid of *egislation had been
published in ne%spapers of general circulation onl) in 199D and in :AA6, 8ith respect
to the present Senate of the 1B
th
#ongress, ho%ever, of %hich the term of half of its
members commenced on 1une !A, :AA, no effort %as undertaken for the publication
of these rules %hen the) first opened their session,
-he Senate Rules simpl) state said 7ules shall take effect seven ($ da)s
after publication in t%o (:$ ne%spapers of general circulation, -he)
donGte3plicitl) provide for the continued effectivit) of such rules until the) are
amended or repealed, It cannot be presumed that the 7ules %ould continue
into the ne3t #ongress, -he Senate of the ne3t #ongress ma) easil) adopt
different rules for its legislative in4uiries %hich come %ithin the rule on
unfinished business,
It is incumbent upon the Senate to publish the rules for its legislative
in4uiries in each #ongress or other%ise make the published rules clearl)
state that the same shall be effective in subse4uent #ongresses or until the)
are amended or repealed to sufficientl) put public on notice,
Also, publication of the rules via a booklet form available to an)one for free, and
accessible to the public at the Senates internet %eb page is insufficient to compl) %ith
the publication re4uirement, 7,A, C9: (-he 2=#ommerce Act$ considers an
electronic data message or an electronic document as the functional e4uivalent of a
%ritten document onl) for evidentiary purposes. In other %ords, the la% merel)
recogni(es the admissibilit) in evidence (for their being the original$ of electronic data
messages and?or electronic documents, It does not make the internet a medium for
publishing laws, rules and regulations,
-he Senate #ommittees, therefore, could not, in violation of the #onstitution, use its
unpublished rules in the legislative in4uir) sub;ect of these consolidated cases, -he
conduct of in4uiries in aid of legislation b) the Senate has to be deferred until it shall
have caused the publication of the rules, because it can do so onl) in accordance
with its duly published rules of procedure.
Ver) recentl), the Senate caused the publication of the Senate 7ules of "rocedure
'overning In4uiries in Aid of *egislation in the &ctober !1, :AAC issues of Manila
Bulletin and Malaya. 8hile %e take ;udicial notice of this fact, the recent publication
does not cure the infirmit) of the in4uir) sought to be prohibited b) the instant
petitions, Insofar as the consolidated cases are concerned, the legislative
investigation sub;ect thereof still could not be undertaken b) the respondent Senate
#ommittees, because no published rules governed it, in clear contravention of the
#onstitution,
SECURITIES !" E#CH!GE C$%%ISSI$! vs. G% !ETW$R&
',7, 0o, 16BA:6
'CTS
&n August 19, 199D, the petitioner, '+A 02-8&7I, I0#,, ('+A$, a domestic
corporation, filed an application for collective approval of various amendments to its
Articles of Incorporation and /)=*a%s %ith the respondent Securities and 23change
#ommission, (S2#$, -he amendments applied for include, among others, the change
in the corporate name of petitioner from <7epublic /roadcasting S)stem, Inc,< to
<'+A 0et%ork, Inc,< as %ell as the e3tension of the corporate term for another fift)
(DA$ )ears from and after 1une 16, :AAA, Jpon such filing, the petitioner had been
assessed b) the S2#Gs #orporate and *egal 5epartment a separate filing fee for the
application for e3tension of corporate term e4uivalent to 1?1A of 1K of its authori(ed
capital stock plus :AK thereof or an amount of "1,:1:,:AA,AA, &n September :6,
199D, the petitioner informed the S2# of its intention to contest the legalit) and
propriet) of the said assessment, >o%ever, the petitioner re4uested the S2# to
approve the other amendments being re4uested b) the petitioner %ithout being
deemed to have %ithdra%n its application for e3tension of corporate term, -he
follo%ing month, the petitioner formall) protested the assessment amounting to
"1,:1:,:AA,AA for its application for e3tension of corporate term, -he follo%ing )ear,
Page 2 of
51
the S2# approved the other amendments to the petitionerGs Articles of Incorporation,
specificall) Article 1 thereof referring to the corporate name of the petitioner as %ell as
Article : thereof referring to the principal purpose for %hich the petitioner %as formed,
/ut '+A re4uested for an official opinion?ruling from the S2# on the validit) and
propriet) of the assessment for application for e3tension of its corporate term,
#onse4uentl), the respondent S2#, through Associate #ommissioner .e 2loisa #,
'loria, on April 1C, 1996, issued its ruling upholding the validit) of the 4uestioned
assessment, -husl), '+A appealed the ruling of the S2# to the #ourt of Appeals
(#A$, on the ground that ground that the assessment of filing fees for the petitionerGs
application for e3tension of corporate term e4uivalent to 1?1A of 1K of the authori(ed
capital stock plus :AK thereof is not in accordance %ith la%,
ISSUE
8hether the S2# +emorandum #ircular 0o, 1, Series of 19C6 should be the basis for
computing the filing fee relative to '+AGs application for the amendment of its articles
of incorporation for purposes of e3tending its corporate termL
RU(I!G
-he S2# assailed the 5ecision dated .ebruar) :A, :AAB of the #ourt of Appeals
%hich directed that S2# +emorandum #ircular 0o, 1, Series of 19C6 should be the
basis for computing the filing fee relative to '+A 0et%ork, Inc,Gs ('+AGs$ application
for the amendment of its articles of incorporation for purposes of e3tending its
corporate term, -he appellate court agreed %ith the S2#Gs submission that an
e3tension of the corporate term is a grant of a fresh license for a corporation to act as
a ;uridical being endo%ed %ith the po%ers e3pressl) besto%ed b) the State, As such,
it is not an ordinar) amendment but is analogous to the filing of ne% articles of
incorporation, >o%ever, the #ourt of Appeals ruled that +emorandum #ircular 0o, :,
Series of 199B is legall) invalid and ineffective for not having been published in
accordance %ith la%, -he challenged memorandum circular, according to the
appellate court, is not merel) an internal or interpretative rule, but affects the public in
general, >ence, its publication is re4uired for its effectivit), 7ate=fi3ing is a legislative
function %hich concededl) has been delegated to the S2# b) 7,A, 0o, !D!1 and
other pertinent la%s, -he due process clause, ho%ever, permits the courts to
determine %hether the regulation issued b) the S2# is reasonable and %ithin the
bounds of its rate=fi3ing authorit) and to strike it do%n %hen it arbitraril) infringes on a
personGs right to propert), -he instant appeal is dismissed for lack of merit,
E)ceptions to irretroactivit* of laws
(I% (W +S. $(,%-IC SW%I((
'CTS.
*iam *a% loaned 1Ak to &l)mpic Sa%mill #orporation and 2llino *ee #hi, -he loan
became due but the debtors failed to pa) and asked for an e3tension of ! months
instead, *a% agreed but added an additional obligation of 6k to the principal amount,
-he debtors failed to pa) again, /ecause of this, *a% instituted a collection case
against the debtors, -he trial court ruled in favor of *a%,
ISSUE.
8&0 the additional obligation of 6k constituted usurious interestLLL
RU(I!G.
0&,
Jsur) has been legall) non=e3istent, Interest can no% be charged as lender and
borro%er ma) agree upon, -he 7ules of #ourt in regards to allegations of usur),
procedural in nature, should be considered repealed %ith retroactive effect,
/udicial "ecisions
.2*IMA ", 52 7&N and VI7'I*I& 7A+&S v, #A
.acts@ -he fire%all of a burned=out building o%ned b) petitioners collapsed and
destro)ed the tailoring shop occupied b) the famil) of private respondents, resulting
in in;uries to private respondents and the death of +arissa /ernal, a daughter, "rivate
respondents had been %arned b) petitioners to vacate their shop in vie% of its
pro3imit) to the %eakened %all but the former failed to do so, &n the basis of the
foregoing facts, the 7-# rendered ;udgment finding petitioners guilt) of gross
negligence and a%arding damages to private respondents, &n appeal, the decision of
the trial court %as affirmed in toto b) the #A, &n the last da) of the 1D=da) period to
file an appeal, petitioners filed a motion for e3tension of time to file a motion for
reconsideration, %hich %as eventuall) denied b) the #A, "etitioners filed their motion
for reconsideration but this %as also denied,
Issue@ 8&0 the #A committed grave abuse of discretion in den)ing petitionersG
motion for e3tention to file a +otion for 7econsideration O0&H
7atio@ -he #A correctl) applied the rule laid do%n in Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v.
ap!on, that the fifteen=da) period for appealing or for filing a motion for
reconsideration cannot be e3tended,
/eginning one month after the promulgation of this 7esolution, the rule shall be
strictl) enforced that no motion for e3tension of time to file a motion for
reconsideration ma) be filed %ith the +etropolitan or +unicipal -rial #ourts, the
7egional -rial #ourts, and the Intermediate Appellate #ourt, Such a motion ma) be
filed onl) in cases pending %ith the Supreme #ourt as the court of last resort, %hich
ma) in its sound discretion either grant or den) the e3tension re4uested,
"etitioners contend that the rule enunciated in the Habaluyas case should not be
made to appl) to the case at bar o%ing to the non=publication of
the Habaluyas decision in the &fficial 'a(ette as of the time the sub;ect decision of
the #A %as promulgated, #ontrar) to petitioners' vie%, there is no la% re4uiring the
publication of Supreme #ourt decisions in the &fficial 'a(ette before the) can be
binding and as a condition to their becoming effective, It is the bounden dut) of
counsel as la%)er in active la% practice to keep abreast of decisions of the Supreme
#ourt particularl) %here issues have been clarified, consistentl) reiterated, and
Page 3 of
51
published in the advance reports of Supreme #ourt decisions and in such
publications as the Supreme #ourt 7eports Annotated (S#7A$ and la% ;ournals,
Computation of Time
0ui1ui vs 2oncaros
.acts@ (%onGt name %ho private respondents and petitioners are co( there are a lot$
"rivate respondents obtained a free patent over a parcel of land, "etitioners contest
this alleging that the land belongs to them because their late father purchased the
same and that the) continuousl) and actuall) possessed it,
"etitioners filed a case for reconve)ance against respondents on the ground
that the patent %as obtained through fraud, Ans%er %as filed, pre trial commenced
but no amicable settlement until trial %as set, 7espondents filed a motion to dismiss
on the ground of lack of ;urisdiction,
&n 1ul) 16, 199 the trial court dismissed the complaint, #ounsel for
petitioners received cop) of the decision on 1ul) 1, 19C9, A motion for
reconsideration %as filed on August 1, 199, -rial court denied the +7 because it
%as filed be)ond the !A=da) reglementar) period,
Issue@ 8hether +7 %as filed be)ond the reglementar) periodL
>eld@ N2SH
Jnder the rules enforced at the time of this case, an appeal ma) be taken
%ithin !Ada)s from notice of the ;udgment of the trial court, In relation thereto, the
0e% #ivil #ode states that in computing period, the 1
st
da) shall be e3cluded and the
last da) included,
In this case, counting !Ada)s from 1ul) 1 (da) petitionerGs counsel
received cop) of the ;udgment$ O e3cluding 1
st
da) O the !A
th
da) %ould be August 16,
"etitioners filed their +7 one da) late or on August 1, /ecause of this, the order of
the trial court dismissing the complaint has become final and e3ecutor,
!ationalit* -rinciple 3 Conflicts Rules
(lorente vs. C
"ationality #rinciple$ %onflicts Rules
.A#-S@ *oren(o and petitioner "aula *lorente %ere married in #amarines Sur,
/efore the outbreak of the "acific 8ar, *oren(o left for the JS 0av) %hile "aula
sta)ed in their con;ugal home in #amarines Sur, *oren(o %as admitted to JS
citi(enship and #ertificate of 0aturali(ation %as issued in his favor, 8hen *oren(o
%as allo%ed to visit his %ife in the "hilippines, he discovered his %ife %as pregnant
and %as Pliving inQ and having an adulterous relationship %ith his brother, #eferino
*lorente, *oren(o refused to forgive "aula and the t%o dre% a %ritten agreement
%hich essentiall) sho%s that "aula admitted her adulterous acts and that the couple
agreed to separate,
*oren(o returned to the JS and filed for divorce %hich %as granted, *oren(o returned
to the "hilippines and married Alicia *lorente, Alicia had no kno%ledge of the first
marriage even if the) resided in the same to%n as "aula, %ho did not oppose the
marriage or cohabitation, *oren(o and Alicia lived together for :D )ears and produced
! children,
/efore *oren(o died, he e3ecuted a %ill, %hich %as pending before the probate court,
be4ueathing all his propert) to Alicia and their ! children, After *oren(o died, "aula
filed %ith the same court a petition for letters of administration over his estate in his
favor, Alicia filed as %ell,
7-# found that the divorce decree granted to *oren(o is void and inapplicable in the
"hilippines therefore the marriage he contracted %ith Alicia is void, #A affirmed,
ISSJ2@ 8hether or not the divorce is valid,
>2*5@ N2S,
In &an 'orn v. Romillo, r., the court held that o%ing to the nationalit) principle
embodied in Article 1D of the ##, onl) "hilippine nationals are covered b) the polic)
against absolute divorces, the same being considered contrar) to the concept of
public polic) and moralit), In the same case, the court ruled that aliens ma) obtain
divorces abroad, provided the) are valid according to their national la%,
.urthermore, in the case of (uita v. %), that once proven that respondent %as no
longer a .ilipino citi(en %hen he obtained the divorce from petitioner, the ruling in &an
'orn %ould become applicable and petitioner could ver) %ell lose her right to inherit
from him,
.or failing to appl) these doctrines, the decision of the #A must be reversed, -he
divorce obtained b) *oren(o from his first %ife "aula %as valid and recogni(ed in this
;urisdiction as a matter of comit), (-he S# remand the case to the -# for ruling on the
intrinsic validit) of the %ill is left to the -#,$
pplication of Chapter 4. Human Relations
"e Tavera vs -TS
"etitioner is a doctor, speciali(ing in treating tuberculosis, She %as appointed as
member of the /oard 5irectors of defendant "hil, -uberculosis Societ), >o%ever,
she %as alleging that she %as removed from her post %ithout informing her of the
la%ful cause and thereafter, 7omulo %as appointed as her replacement, She %as
claiming that B members of the /oard %ere not members of the Societ) and hence,
the) did not have the po%er to be appointed in the /oard and to vote, She filed a
case against them, claiming that the) violated the >uman 7ights provisions of the
Page 4 of
51
#ivil #ode, 5efendants %ere claiming that the position of petitioner is held at the
pleasure of the /oard and hence, she ma) be removed at an)time,
ISSJ2@ #an she invoke the human relations provisions of the ##L
S#@ 0&
"etitioner cannot seek relief from the general provisions of the 0e% #ivil #ode on
>uman 7elations nor from the fundamental principles of the 0e% #onstitution on
preservation of human dignit), 8hile these provisions present some basic principles
that are to be observed for the rightful relationship bet%een human beings and the
stabilit) of social order, these are merel) guides for human conduct in the absence of
specific legal provisions and definite contractual stipulations, In the case at bar, the
#ode of /)=*a%s of the Societ) contains a specific provision governing the term of
office of petitioner, -he same necessaril) limits her rights under the 0e% #ivil #ode
and the 0e% #onstitution upon acceptance of the appointment,
+oreover, the act of the /oard in declaring her position as vacant is not onl) in
accordance %ith the #ode of /)=*a%s of the Societ) but also meets the e3acting
standards of honest) and good faith,
5. Chato v. 'ortune Tobacco
7A 6DB %as passed in 1une 1A, 199!, "rior to its enactment, cigarette brands
#hampion, >ope and +ore %ere considered local brands sub;ected to a lo%er ad
valorem ta3 rate, : da)s before 7A 6DB took effect, #hato issued 7+# !=9! %hich
reclassified the same cigarette brands resulting to the imposition of a higher ad
valorem rate, In effect, the 7+# sub;ected the cigarette brands to the 7A even before
it took effect, In a separate case (#I7 v, #A$, 7+# !=9! %as held to be not valid for
having fallen short of the re4uirements for a valid admin issuance,
.ortune (the cigarette manufacturer$ filed a complaint for damages against #hato in
her private capacit), It contended that #hato violated Art, !: of the ## b) depriving it
of its propert) %ithout due process of the la% and in violation of e4ual protection, -o
this, #hato argued that she issued the 7+# in the performance of her official
functions and %ithin the scope of her authorit) so she canGt be liable, She filed motion
to dismiss,
Via petition for certiorari, the denial of the motion to dismiss reached the S#, In its
1une 19, :AA decision it ordered the trial court to proceed %ith the case, #hato
moved for the reconsideration of that decision,
Issue@ %?n #hato can be held liable in her personal capacit) for having issued the
7+# O 0&
7uling@ -o determine %hether a public officer is liable for improper or non=
performance of dut), it must be first determined %hat kind of dut) is involved, -here
are : kinds of duties e3ercised b) public officers, &ne is the Pdut) o%ing to the public
collectivel)Q and Pdut) o%ing to particular individualsQ, -he former pertains to officers
%ho act for the public at large and are ordinaril) paid out of the treasur), 23,
'overnorGs dut) to the public is to see to it that la%s are properl) e3ecuted, that
competent officials are appointed b) him, etc, *egislators o%e a dut) to the public to
pass %ise and proper la%s, .or this kind of dut), no one individual could single
himself out and assert that the duties are o%ed to him alone, -he second kind covers
those %ho perform duties to an individual b) reason of their emplo)ment b) a
particular person to do some act for him in an official capacit), -he) usuall) receive
their compensation from that particular individual, 23, A sheriff in serving civil process
for a private suitor, a recorder of deeds in recording a deed or mortgage in favor of a
private individual, a notar) public in protesting a negotiable paper, etc,
8hen %hat is involved is a dut) o%ing to the public in general, an individual can have
no cause of action for damages against the public officer, -he e3ception to this is if
the individual suffers a particular or special in*ury on account of the public officerGs
improper or non=performance, -he principle ma) no% translate into the rule that an
individual can hold a public officer personally liable for damages on account of an act
or omission that violates a constitutional right only if it results in a particular wrong or
in*ury to the former.
A public officer like #hato, vested %ith 4uasi=legislative or rule=making po%er, o%es a
dut) to the public to promulgate rules %hich are compliant %ith the re4uirements of
valid admin regulations, ItGs a dut) o%ed not to the respondent alone, but to the entire
public %ho %ould be affected b) such rule,
0ote that in #I7 v, #A, the 7+# %as not declared unconstitutional for violating the
due process re4uirement or the e4ual protection clause, #ourt onl) said that the 7+#
did not meet the re4uirements for a valid admin issuance, .ortune relies heavil) on
that case as its cause of action, It sho%s therefore that it reall) has no cause of action
for failing to sho% its allegation that #hato violated Art, !:, .ortune failed to sho% that
it incurred some particular %rong or in;ur),
.inall), Sec, :: of the -a3 7eform Act of 199 provides@ 6+atisfaction of udgment
Recovered )gainst any Internal Revenue ,fficer. - 8hen an action is brought against
an) Internal 7evenue officer to recover damages b) reason of an) act done in the
performance of official dut)Ran) ;udgment, damages or costs recovered in such
action shall be satisfied b) the #ommissionerR, 0o such ;udgment, damages or
costs shall be paid or reimbursed in behalf of a person %ho has acted negligentl) or
in bad faith, or %ith %illful oppression,Q /ecause the respondentGs complaint does not
impute negligence or bad faith to the petitioner, an) mone) ;udgment b) the trial court
against her %ill have to be assumed b) the 7epublic of the "hilippines, As such, the
complaint is in the nature of a suit against the State,
"ut* to act with /ustice7 $bserve Honest* and Good 'aith
(lorente v. Sandi8anba*an
Page 5 of
51
.acts@ *lorente, then municipal ma)or of Mamboanga del 0orte %as charged %ith
violation of Sec, !EeF of 7epublic Act 0o, !A19, other%ise kno%n as the Anti='raft and
#orrupt "ractices Act, According to the information@ he .did then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and criminally with evident bad faith refuse to sign and approve the
payrolls and vouchers representing the payments of the salaries and other
emoluments of /eticia 0. 1uertes, without *ust valid cause and without due process of
law, thereby causing undue in*ury to the said /eticia 0. 1uertes.2 8hile admitting
some dela)s in the pa)ment of the complainantGs claims, petitioner sought to prove
the defense of good faith == that the %ithholding of pa)ment %as due to her failure to
submit the re4uired mone) and propert) clearance, and to the Sangguniang /a)anGs
dela)ed enactment of a supplemental budget to cover the claims, >e adds that such
dela)s did not result in Pundue in;ur)Q to complainant,
7espondent #ourt held that the dela) or %ithholding of complainantGs
salaries and emoluments %as unreasonable and caused complainant undue in;ur),
/eing then the sole bread%inner in their famil), the %ithholding of her salaries caused
her difficulties in meeting her famil)Gs financial obligations like pa)ing for the tuition
fees of her four children,
ISSJ2 5id petitioner not act in good faith in refusing to immediatel) sign the vouchers
and implement the compromise agreement until the Sangguniang /a)an had enacted
the appropriation ordinance and until +rs, .uertes submitted the clearance from the
+unicipalit) of "inan, Mamboanga del 0orteL 0&, "2-I-I&0 IS '7A0-25,
>2*5 7espondent #ourt cannot shift the blame on the petitioner, %hen it %as the
complainant %ho failed to submit the re4uired clearance, -his re4uirement, %hich the
complainant disregarded, %as even printed at the back of the ver) vouchers sought to
be approved, As assistant municipal treasurer, she ought to kno% that this is a
condition for the pa)ment of her claims, Also, given the lack of corresponding
appropriation ordinance and certification of availabilit) of funds for such purpose,
petitioner had the dut) not to sign the vouchers,
As chief e3ecutive of the municipalit) *lorente could not have approved the
voucher for the pa)ment of complainantGs salaries under Sec, !BB, *ocal 'overnment
#ode of 1991, -he petitionerGs failure to approve the complainantGs vouchers %as due
to some legal obstacles, and not entirel) %ithout reason, -hus, evident bad faith
cannot be completel) imputed to him,
P/ad faith does not simpl) connote bad ;udgment or negligenceS it imputes a
dishonest purpose or some moral obli4uit) and conscious doing of a %rongS a breach
of s%orn dut) through some motive or intent or ill %illS it partakes of the nature of
fraud, It contemplates a state of mind affirmativel) operating %ith furtive design or
some motive of self interest or ill %ill for ulterior purposes, 2vident bad faith connotes
a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do %rong or cause damage,Q
ctions for 2reach of promise to marr*
2una8 v. C
'acts. #onrado /unag, 1r, brought Menaida #irilo to a motel %here the) had se3ual
intercourse, *ater that evening, said /unag brought #irilo to the house of his
grandmother in *as "i6as, +etro +anila, %here the) lived together as husband and
%ife for :1 da)s, Soon, /unag and #irilo filed their respective applications for a
marriage license %ith the &ffice of the *ocal #ivil 7egistrar of /acoor, #avite,
>o%ever, /unag left #irilo and soon filed an affidavit %ithdra%ing his application for a
marriage license,
#irilo claims that she %as abducted and raped, &ne of the cases she filed
%as a suit for damages based on a breach of a promise to marr), -he trial court
decided in her favor, -his %as affirmed b) the #A,
Issue. Should damages be a%arded based on a breach of a promise to marr)L
"ecision. 0o,
In this ;urisdiction, %e adhere to the time=honored rule that an action for
breach of promise to marr) has no standing in the civil la%, apart from the right to
recover mone) or propert) advanced b) the plaintiff upon the faith of such promise,
'enerall), therefore, a breach of promise to marr) per se is not actionable, e3cept
%here the plaintiff has actuall) incurred e3penses for the %edding and the necessar)
incidents thereof,
In this case ho%ever, moral damages %ere a%arded based on art, :1 of the
#ivil #ode %hich states that an) person %ho %ilfull) causes loss or in;ur) to another
in a manner that is contrar) to morals, good customs or public polic) shall
compensate the latter for moral damages, As such, the act of /unag forcibl)
abducting #irilo and having carnal kno%ledge %ith her against her %ill, and thereafter
promising to marr) her in order to escape criminal liabilit), onl) to thereafter renege
on such promise after cohabiting %ith her for t%ent)=one da)s, irremissibl) constitute
acts contrar) to morals and good customs,
Article :1 %as adopted to remed) the countless gaps in the statutes %hich
leave so man) victims of moral %rongs helpless even though the) have actuall)
suffered material and moral in;ur), and is intended to vouchsafe ade4uate legal
remed) for that untold number of moral %rongs %hich is impossible for human
foresight to specificall) provide for in the statutes, -hus, the damages a%arded to
#irilo %ere proper,
94. 2a:sh vs. Court of ppeals ;495 SCR 99<=
'acts. /aksh, an Iranian citi(en, courted respondent 'on(ales, She accepted his
love on the condition that the) %ill get married, so he promised her that he %ill marr)
her, 'on(alesG parents made preparations b) looking for pigs and chickens, inviting
friends and relatives and contracting sponsors, 8ithout getting married, /aksh and
'on(ales lived together, 'on(alesG Tcherr) got popped,G -hereafter, /aksh began
maltreating 'on(ales and eventuall) told her that he no longer %anted to marr) her
and that he %as alread) married to another %oman, 'on(ales filed a complaint for
damages,
Issue. 8?0 Article :1 of the 0e% #ivil #ode is applicable such that damages ma)
be a%ardedL
Page 6 of
51
Held. NesH Article :1 appliesH S# said that Article :1 is designed to e3pand the
concept of torts or 4uasi=delict b) granting ade4uate legal remed) for the untold moral
%rongs %hich are impossible for human foresight to specificall) enumerate and
punish in the statute books,
8here a manGs promise to marr) is the pro3imate cause of the acceptance
of his love b) a %oman and his representation to fulfil that promise thereafter become
the pro3imate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a se3ual congress, proof that
he had, in realit), no intention of marr)ing her and that the promise %as onl) a subtle
scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her
consent to the se3ual act, could ;ustif) the a%ard of damages pursuant to Article :1
not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it
and the wilful in*ury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter, It is
essential ho%ever, that such in;ur) should have been committed in a manner contrar)
to morals, good customs, or public polic),
Un>ust Enrichment at the e)pense of others
9?. GRCI + -HI(I--I!E IR(I!ES
.A#-S@ "etitioners 1uanito 'arcia and Alberto 5umago are emplo)ees of "A* %ho
have been dismissed after being caught in the act of sniffing shabu in the toolroom,
'arcia et al filed an illegal dismissal case against "A* before the *abor Arbiter (*A$,
-he *A ruled in favor of 'arcia et al and ordered "A* to immediatel) reinstate
petitioners, &n appeal to the 0*7# b) "A*, the decision of the *A %as reversed,
+ean%hile, the *A issued a 0otice of 'arnishment the 8rit of 23ecution for the
reinstatement aspect of its decision, 8hen "A* tried to en;oin the reinstatement and
garnishment, 0*7# affirmed such 0otice and 8rit but suspended and referred the
action to the 7ehabilitation 7eceiver of "A* %hich at that time %as undergoing
rehabilitation receivership, >o%ever, %hen "A* manifested that S2# had approved its
e3it from the rehabilitation, S# resolved to entertain the issue of %hether "A* should
pa) back%ages to the 'arcia et al from the time the *A ordered their reinstatement up
to the time the 0*7# reversed the findings of the *A
ISSJ2@ 8hether or not compelling "A* to pa) back%ages despite the fact that the
0*7# ruled in its favor on appeal constitutes un;ust enrichment
>2*5@ 0&, the social ;ustice principles of labor la% out%eigh or render inapplicable
the civil la% doctrine of un;ust enrichment, According to article ::! of the *abor #ode,
the order of reinstatement of the labor arbiter is immediatel) e3ecutor even pending
appeal, -he reinstatement ma) be actual or pa)roll reinstatement at the option of the
emplo)er, >&82V27, in this case, "A* is e3cused from compl)ing %ith the
obligation to reinstate 'arcia et al either actuall) or other%ise because %hile the case
%as before the *A and the 0*7#, it %as under rehabilitation, It is basic in corporate
rehabilitation that all actions against a corporation undergoing rehabilitation is ipso
;ure suspended, -his includes labor actions, -rue, the implementation of the
reinstatement order is a ministerial dut) of the *A unless it is restrained b) a higher
court, In this case, the in;unction partook the nature of suspension of action b)
legislative fiat i,e, la% on corporate rehabilitation, -his is e4uall) effective as %hen the
in;unction %as issued b) a higher court,
(iabilit* of public officers
9@. berca v +er ;95AA=
Ver, et al, are members of the Armed .orces of the "hilippines, -he) conducted raids
against the houses of the petitioners (Aberca, etc$, claiming that the) %ere
communists, In doing so, Ver, et al, used spurious ;udicial search %arrants, Ver, et al,
took the personal belongings of the petitioners and even arrested some of them
%ithout %arrants,
Aberca, et al, sued for damages, Ver, et al, claim that the) are immune from suit,
Issue@ #an Aberca recover damagesL
>eld@ Nes, under Art !: of the #ivil #ode, public officials and private citi(ens can be
held liable for damages for infringing upon the rights of others,
Art !: provides a sanction to the deepl) cherished rights and freedoms enshrined in
the #onstitution, 0o man ma) seek to violate those sacred rights %ith impunit), In
times of great upheaval or of social and political stress, %hen the temptation is
strongest to )ield to the la% of force rather than the force of la%, it is necessar) to
remind ourselves that certain basic rights and liberties are immutable and cannot be
sacrificed to the transient needs or imperious demands of the ruling po%er, -he rule
of la% must prevail, or else libert) %ill perish,
Article !: of the #ivil #ode %hich renders an) public officer or emplo)ee or an)
private individual liable in damages for violating the #onstitutional rights and liberties
of another, as enumerated therein, does not e3empt the respondents from
responsibilit), &nl) ;udges are e3cluded from liabilit) under the said article, provided
their acts or omissions do not constitute a violation of the "enal #ode or other penal
statute,
9<. Tabuena v. Sandi8anba*an7 'eb. 9B 955B
'acts. -abuena, 'en, +anager of the +anila International Airport Authorit) (+IAA$,
%as instructed b) "res, +arcos to pa) directl) to the presidentGs office and in cash
%hat the +IAA o%es the "hil, 0ational #onstruction #orp, ("0##$ in the amount of
"DD million, -he order %as done both through phone and through a "residential
+emorandum, received through 'imene(, +arcosG private secretar), 8ith the help of
the Asst, 'en, +anager, 5abao, and Acting +anager of the .inancial Services
5epartment, "eralta (the) %ere the ones authori(ed to make %ithdra%als$, -abuena
Page 7 of
51
%as able to release the amount of "DD million b) means of ! %ithdra%als, -he mone)
%as delivered to the presidentGs office through 'imene(,
#ases %ere filed against -abuena and "eralta in the Sandiganba)an,
charging them of malversation (5abao %as still at large$, S/ convicted them, sa)ing
that +IAA did not have an) outstanding obligations to the "0##, -abuena and
"eralta appealed to the S#, alleging the defense of good faith,
Issue. 8hether or not -abuena and "eralta criminall) liableL
Held. 0&, -he %ithdra%als %ere ordered b) "res, +arcos himself, first through
phone, and then through a "res, +emorandum, 2ven though -abuena and "eralta
had both thought that the disbursements %ere Pout of the ordinar)Q and Pnot based on
normal proceduresQ, the) both had no choice but to follo% such order, +arcos %as
undeniabl) their superior, being "resident of the "hil, %ho e3ercised control over
government agencies like the +IAA and "0##, +arcos has a sa) in matters involving
inter=government agenc) affairs and transactions, such as directing pa)ment of
liabilit) of one entit) to another and the manner in %hich it should be carried out, As a
recipient of such kind of directive coming from the highest official of the land, good
faith should be read on their compliance, %ithout hesitation nor an) 4uestion, %ith the
+arcos +emorandum, -he) are entitled to the ;ustif)ing circumstance of P)ny person
who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.2
>o%ever, -abuena though acting in good faith, should still be
administrativel) or civill) liable, -he disbursements %ere made out of the ordinar) and
not based on normal procedures, -rue, the deviation %as inevitable under the
circumstances that -abuena %as in, >e did not have the lu3ur) of time to observe all
auditing procedures considering the fact that the +emorandum called for his
Pimmediate compliance,Q /e that as it ma), -abuena surel) cannot escape
responsibilit) for such omission,
Sandiganba)an decision 72V27S25,
Independent Civil ctions and -re>udicial 0uestions
bunado v. -eople
.A#-S@ -his case involves /I'A+N
September, 196 O Abunado marries 0arcisa
19CC O 0arcisa leaves for %ork in 1apan
199: O 0arcisa returns to the "hilippines upon finding out that her husband is having
an e3tra=marital affair and has left her con;ugal home, She found out that her husband
had contracted a second marriage %ith Menaida /inas on 1anuar) 19C9,
199D O A bigam) case %as filed against Abunado
Abunados defense@ petitioner claims that his petition for annulment?declaration of
nullit) of marriage %as a pre;udicial 4uestion, hence, the proceedings in the bigam)
case should have been suspended during the pendenc) of the annulment case,
"etitioner, in fact, eventuall) obtained a ;udicial declaration of nullit) of his marriage to
0arcisa on &ctober :9, 1999,
ISSJ2@ Is the petition for annulment or declaration of nullit) a pre;udicial 4uestionL
>2*5@ 0& it is not, A pre;udicial 4uestion has been defined as one based on a fact
distinct and separate from the crime but so intimatel) connected %ith it that it
determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal
action, it must appear not onl) that said case involves facts intimatel) related to those
upon %hich the criminal prosecution %ould be based but also that in the resolution of
the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused
%ould necessaril) be determined, -he rationale behind the principle of suspending a
criminal case in vie% of a pre;udicial 4uestion is to avoid t%o conflicting decisions,
-he subse4uent ;udicial declaration of the nullit) of the first marriage %as immaterial
because prior to the declaration of nullit), the crime had alread) been consummated,
+oreover, petitionerGs assertion %ould onl) dela) the prosecution of bigam) cases
considering that an accused could simpl) file a petition to declare his previous
marriage void and invoke the pendenc) of that action as a pre;udicial 4uestion in the
criminal case, 8e cannot allo% that,
-he outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitionerGs marriage to 0arcisa had no
bearing upon the determination of petitionerGs innocence or guilt in the criminal case
for bigam), because all that is re4uired for the charge of bigam) to prosper is that the
first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted,
-hus, under the la%, a marriage, even one %hich is void or voidable, shall be deemed
valid until declared other%ise in a ;udicial proceeding, In this case, even if petitioner
eventuall) obtained a declaration that his first marriage %as void ab initio, the point is,
both the first and the second marriage %ere subsisting before the first marriage %as
annulled,
C$/U!GC$ vs. -(%
.A#-S@ -he complainant 2duardo #o;uangco is a client of A##7A, % h o
a s s i g n e d t h e c a s e t o A t t ) , " a l m a , t h e r es pondent , -he
f or mer hi r ed t he l at t er as hi s per s onal c ouns el f or hi s busi ness,
Att ), "al ma becomes ver) cl ose to the f ami l ) of #o; uangco, and he
di nes and goes %i t h t hem abroad, >e even tutored, compl ai nantG s ::=
)ear ol d daughter +ari a *uisa #o;uangco (*isa$,
&n 1une ::, 19C:, respondent marri ed *i sa i n >ongkong %i t hout t he
kno%l edge of t he compl ai nant and despi t e the f acts that t he f ormer i s
al read) mar r i ed and %i t h t hr ee ( !$ c hi l dr en, #ompl ai nant s ends
hi s t %o s ons t o persuade *i sa t o go home %i t h t hem, %hi ch she di d,
I n t he cel ebrati on of respondentGs marriage %ith *isa he misrepresented himself
as a bachelor, &n August :B, 19C:, complainant filed %ith the #ourt of .irst Instance,
a pet i t i on f or decl arati on of nul l i t ) of t he marri age and %hi ch %as
grant ed, Subse4uent l ) compl ai nant f i l ed a di sbarment compl ai nt on t he
ground of grave abuse and betra)al of the trust and confidence reposed in him,
7espondent in his ans%er filed a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action, As he
contends that complaint fails to allege acts constituting deceit, malpractice, gross
misconduct or violation of his la%)erGs oath,
Page 8 of
51
ISSJ2@ 8&0 r es pondent G s ac t s c ons t i t ut e dec ei t , mal pr ac t i c e,
gross misconduct in office, grossl) immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a
la%)er that %ould %arrant his disbarment, N2SH
7J*I0'@
-here is no 4uestion that respondent as a la%)er, is %ell versed in the la%, full) %ell
that in marr)ing +aria *uisa he %as entering into a bigamous marriage defined and
penali(ed under Article !B9 of the 7evised "enal #ode, -he respondent betra)ed
t he trust reposed i n hi m b) compl ai nant, >e %as treated as part of the famil)
and %as allo%ed to tutor +aria *uisa, .or the f oregoi ng reasons, i t i s
submi t ted t hat respondent commi tt ed g r o s s l ) i m m o r a l c o n d u c t
a n d v i o l a t i o n o f h i s o a t h a s a l a % ) e r , a n d i t i s
recommended that respondent be suspended f rom the practi ce of l a% f or
a period of three (!$ )ears and %hich later lessen to one (1$ )ear, According to
I/"@PAt the outset, it must be stressed that the la% profession does not prescribe a
di chotom) of standards among i ts members, -here i s no di sti ncti on as to
%hether the transgression is committed in the la%)ers professional capacit) or in his
private life, -his is because a la%)er ma) not divide his personalit) so as to be an
attorne) at one time and a mere citi(en at another, -hus, not onl ) hi s prof essi onal
act i vi t i es but even hi s pri vate l i f e, i nsof ar as t he l att er ma) reflect
unfavorabl) upon the good name and prestige of the profession and t he courts,
ma) at an) ti me be t he sub; ect of i n4ui r) on the part of the proper
authorities,Q" r o f e s s i o n a l c o m p e t e n c ) a l o n e d o e s n o t m a k e a
l a % ) e r a % o r t h ) m e m b e r o f t h e / a r , ' o o d m o r a l
c h a r a c t e r i s a l % a ) s a n i n d i s p e n s a b l e re4uirement, -he
i nt er di c t upon l a%)e r s , as i ns c r i bed i n 7ul e 1, A1 of t he #ode
of " r o f e s s i o n a l 7 e s p o n s i b i l i t ) , i s t h a t t h e ) s h a l l n o t
e n g a g e i n u n l a % f u l , di s hones t , i mmor al or dec ei t f ul
c onduc t ,
Re*es v. -earlban: Securities C /ul* ?D7 4DDA
.acts@ 7e)es is the Vice="resident of 8incorp, a corporation that arranges and
brokers loans of its clients, one of %hom is "earlbank Securities,
Sometime before this case, investors or lenders made demands on
"earlbank to pa) several loans that %ere brokered b) 8incorp, -he investors alleged
that the) %erenGt able to collect on their outstanding credits %ith 8incorp because
"earlbank didnGt pa), Apparentl), "earlbank alleges that it did not have an)
outstanding loans that 8I0#&7" brokered, -hus "earlbank investigated on these
alleged debts,
"earlbank demanded from 8incorp a full and accurate accounting of the
identities and investments of the lenders and the alleged debts of "earlbank %ith
supporting records and documents, 8incorp did not respond to this demand,
"earlbank instituted a case %ith the S2#, no% pending %ith the 7-# (bec, of
that la% %hich transferred ;urisdiction %ith the 7-#s, for Pfull and accurate accounting
of investments and alleged loan obligations of "earlbank,Q
"earlbank, through its treasurer, also filed complaints %ith the 5&1 against
officers of 8incorp, one of them %as 7e)es, for falsification of commercial and private
documents,
-he 5&1 filed the criminal case %ith the +-#, *ater, ho%ever, 5&1 uSec
+erciditas 'utierre( ordered the %ithdra%al of the Informations, -his decision %as
reversed b) the 5&1 Sec,, thus the case proceeded,
7e)es filed a petition for certiorari %ith the #A, %here he raised, among
others, that the S2# case is a pre;udicial 4uestion to the criminal case for falsification,
#A denied certiorari thus criminal case proceeds,
Issue@ Is the S2# case a pre;udicial 4uestion that has to be resolved before the
criminal case for falsification ma) proceedL 0&,
7uling@ S# affirms #A, #ase proceeds,
A prejudicial question is defined as one %hich arises in a case the
resolution of %hich is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the
cogni(ance of %hich pertains to another tribunal, -he pre;udicial 4uestion must be
determinative of the case before the court, but the ;urisdiction to tr) and resolve the
4uestion must be lodged in another court or tribunal, It is a 4uestion based on a fact
distinct and separate from the crime, but so intimatel) connected %ith it that it
determines the guilt or innocence of the accusedS and for it to suspend the criminal
action, it must appear not onl) that said case involves facts intimatel) related to those
upon %hich the criminal prosecution %ould be based, but also that in the resolution of
the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused
%ould necessaril) be determined,
It comes into pla) generall) in a situation in %hich a civil action and a
criminal action are both pending and there e3ists in the former an issue %hich must
be preemptivel) resolved before the criminal action ma) proceed, because
ho%soever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved %ould be determinative *uris
et de *ure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case,
-he rationale behind the principle of pre;udicial 4uestion is to avoid t%o
conflicting decisions, -he elements of a pre;udicial 4uestion are@ (a$ the previousl)
instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimatel) related to the issue raised
in the subse4uent criminal action, and (b$ the resolution of such issue determines
%hether or not the criminal action ma) proceed,
If the resolution of the issue in the civil action %ill not determine the criminal
responsibilit) of the accused in the criminal action based on the same facts, or there
is no necessit) that the civil case be determined first before taking up the criminal
case, therefore, the civil case does not involve a pre;udicial 4uestion, 0either is there
a pre;udicial 4uestion if the civil and the criminal action can, according to la%, proceed
independentl) of each other,
&ne of the issues taken in the S2# case is %hether "earlbank has
outstanding loans %ith 8incorp, >o%ever, a finding that "earlbank indeed has
outstanding debts %ill not totall) absolve 7e)es of an) criminal liabilit), in other
%ords, its not an absolute defense, Since, %hat is determinative in the .alsification
case is %hether there reall) %ere falsified documents,
Page 9 of
51
-I%E!TE( + -I%E!TE(
'CTS
+aria #hr)santine "imentel (private respondent$ filed an action for frustrated
parricide against 1oselito 7, "imentel (petitioner$ before the 7-# U#,
"etitioner received summons to appear before the 7-# Antipolo, for 5eclaration of
0ullit) of +arriage under Section !6 of the .amil) #ode on the ground of
ps)chological incapacit),
"etitioner filed an urgent motion to suspend the proceedings before the 7-# U# on
the ground of the e3istence of a pre;udicial 4uestion, "etitioner asserted that since
the relationship bet%een the offender and the victim is a ke) element in parricide, the
outcome of the case filed in 7-# Antipolo %ould have a bearing in the criminal case
filed against him before the 7-# U#,
-he 7-# U# held that the pendenc) of the case before the 7-# Antipolo is not a
pre;udicial 4uestion, "etitioner filed a +7, 7-# U# denied the motion,
"etitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the #A, #A dismissed the petition,
"etitioner filed a petition for revie% before the S#,
ISSUE
8?0 the resolution of the action for annulment of marriage is a pre;udicial 4uestion
that %arrants the suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide against
petitionerL
HE("
-he petition has no merit, Annulment of +arriage is not a "re;udicial Uuestion in
#riminal #ase for "arricide,
-here is a pre;udicial 4uestion %hen a civil action and a criminal action are both
pending, and there e3ists in the civil action an issue %hich must be preemptivel)
resolved before the criminal action ma) proceed because ho%soever the issue raised
in the civil action is resolved %ould be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the
accused in the criminal case,
-he issue in the civil case for annulment of marriage under Article !6 of the .amil)
#ode is %hether petitioner is ps)chologicall) incapacitated to compl) %ith the
essential marital obligations, -he issue in parricide is %hether the accused killed the
victim,
In this case, since petitioner %as charged %ith frustrated parricide, the issue is
%hether he performed all the acts of e3ecution %hich %ould have killed respondent as
a conse4uence but %hich, nevertheless, did not produce it b) reason of causes
independent of petitionerGs %ill, At the time of the commission of the alleged crime,
petitioner and respondent %ere married, -hus, even if the marriage bet%een
petitioner and respondent is annulled b) 7-# Antipolo, petitioner could still be held
criminall) liable, since at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, he %as still
married to respondent,
8e cannot accept petitionerGs reliance on -enebro v, #ourt of Appeals that the ;udicial
declaration of the nullit) of a marriage on the ground of ps)chological incapacit)
retroacts to the date of the celebration of the marriage insofar as the vinculum
bet%een the spouses is concerned, .irst, the issue in -enebro is the effect of the
;udicial declaration of nullit) of a second or subse4uent marriage on the ground of
ps)chological incapacit) on a criminal liabilit) for bigam), -here %as no issue of
pre;udicial 4uestion in that case, Second, the #ourt ruled in -enebro that there is a
recognition %ritten into the la% itself that such a marriage, although void ab initio, ma)
still produce legal conse4uences, In fact, the #ourt declared in that case that a
declaration of the nullit) of the second marriage on the ground of ps)chological
incapacit) is of absolutel) no moment insofar as the StateGs penal la%s are
concerned,
Concept of %arria8e
In re. 2ucana ;CTU( CSE 3 !$ "IGEST &SI=
.A#-S@ Acting upon the letter of +rs, Angela 5rilon /alta(ar, /aranga) #aptain of
Victories, 5umangas, Iloilo, dated .ebruar) :6, 196, respondent 0otar) "ublic
7ufillo 5, /ucana %as re4uired b) this #ourt in its 7esolution of +arch :!, 196, to
sho% cause %ithin ten (1A$ da)s from notice, %h) he should not be disciplinaril) dealt
%ith for having notari(ed on 0ovember 1A, 19D at 5umangas, Iloilo an Agreement
e3ecuted b) the spouses 'on(alo /alta(ar and *uisa Sorongon %herein the afore=
mentioned spouses agreed therein that <in case an)one of them %ill remarr) both
parties offer no ob;ection and %aive all civil and criminal actions against them< and
that the afore=mentioned Agreement %as <entered into for the purpose of agreement
to allo% each and ever)one of them to remarr) %ithout ob;ection or reservation ,,,<,
%hich affidavit is contrar) to la% because it sanctions an illicit and immoral purpose,
&n April :1, 196, respondent , submitted his e3planation, admitting that he notari(ed
the afore=mentioned document and that the Agreement is <immoral and against public
polic)<, but in mitigation he asserted that the document in 4uestion %as "repared b)
his clerk, *ucia 5, 5octolero %ithout his previous kno%ledgeS that %hen said
document %as presented to him for signature after it %as signed b) the parties, he
vehementl) refused to sign it and informed the parties that the document %as
immoralS that he placed the said document on his table among his files and more than
a %eek later, he asked his clerk %here the document %as for the purpose of
destro)ing it, but to his surprise he found that the same %as notari(ed b) him as per
his file copies in the officeS that he dispatched his clerk to get the cop) from the
parties, but the afore=mentioned parties could not be found in their respective
residencesS that he must have inadvertentl) notari(ed the same in vie% of the
numerous documents on his table and at that time he %as emotionall) disturbed as
his father (no% deceased$ %as then seriousl) ill, -he foregoing contentions of
respondent %ere corroborated substantiall) b) the separate s%orn statements of his
clerk, *ucia 5, 5octolero and Angela 5rilon /alta(ar, both dated April :A, 196,
9
-here is no 4uestion that the afore=mentioned Agreement is contrar) to la%, morals
and good customs, +arriage is an inviolable social institution, in the maintenance of
%hich in its purit) the public is deepl) interested for it is the foundation of the famil)
and of societ) %ithout %hich there could be neither civili(ation nor progress,
4
-he contract, in substance, purports to formulate an agreement bet%een the husband
and the %ife to take unto himself a concubine and the %ife to live in adulterous
relations %ith another man, %ithout opposition from either one, and %hat is more, it
induces each part) to commit bigam),
?
-his is not onl) immoral but in effect abets the
Page 10 of
51
commission of a crime, A notar) public, b) virtue of the nature of his office, is re4uired
to e3ercise his duties %ith due care and %ith due regard to the provisions of e3isting
la%,
As stressed b) 1ustice +alcolm in #anganiban v. Borromeo,
@
<it is for the notar) to
inform himself of the facts to %hich he intends to certif) and to take part in no illegal
enterprise, -he notar) public is usuall) a person %ho has been admitted to the
practice of la%, and as such, in the commingling of his duties notar) and la%)er, must
be held responsible for both, 8e are led to hold that a member of the bar %ho
performs an act as a notar) public of a disgraceful or immoral character ma) be held
to account b) the court even to the e3tent of disbarment,<
In the case at bar, respondent in effect pleads for clemenc), claiming that the
notari(ation of the 4uestioned document %as due to his negligence, 8e find,
ho%ever, that the aforementioned document could not have been notari(ed if the
respondent had onl) e3ercised the re4uisite care re4uired b) la% in the e3ercise of
his duties as notar) public,
8>272.&72, 8e hold that respondent 7ufillo 5, /ucana is guilt) of malpractice
and is hereb) suspended from the office of not tr) public for a period of si3 (6$
months, %ith the admonition that a repetition of the same or a similar act in the future
%ill be dealt %ith more severel),
(e8al Capacit* 3 Se)
SI(+ERI$ v. RE-U2(IC $' THE -HI(I--I!ES
<?B SCR ?B?7 G.R. !o. 9B@EA57 $ctober 957 4DDB.
'CTS. &n 0ovember :6, :AA:, 7ommel Silverio filed a petition to change his first
name (to +el)$ and se3 (to female$ in his birth certificate in the 7egional -rial #ourt of
+anila, >e alleges to be a male transse3ual and that he has al%a)s identified more
%ith girls since childhood, After undergoing breast augmentation, hormone treatment
and ps)chological e3amination, on 1anuar) :, :AA1, he finall) under%ent se3
reassignment surger) in /angkok,
-he petition %as granted b) the trial court, but %as reversed b) the #ourt of Appeals,
ISSUE. 8?0 Articles BA to B1! of the #ivil #ode, and 7ules 1A! and 1AC of the
7ules of #ourt allo% petitioner to change his name and se3 in his birth certificate, O
0&,
RTI$. A personGs first name cannot be changed because of se3 reassignment, -he
State has an interest in the names carried b) individuals and entities for the purpose
of identification, #hange of name is a privilege, not a right, "etitions for change of
name are thus controlled b) statute, Art, !6 of the #ivil #ode
:
%as amended b) 7,A,
9ABC,
!
Section 1 of the said la% provides@
2 0o person can change his name or surname %ithout ;udicial authorit)
3 #lerical 2rror *a%
Section 1, )uthority to %orrect %lerical or
3ypographical Error and %hange of 1irst "ame or
"ickname, O 0o entr) in a civil register shall be
changed or corrected %ithout a ;udicial order,
e3cept for clerical or t)pographical errors and
change of first name or nickname %hich can be
corrected or changed b) the concerned cit) or
municipal civil registrar or consul general in
accordance %ith the provisions of this Act and its
implementing rules and regulations,
-hus, the petition should have been filed %ith the local civil
registrar, assuming it could be legall) done, instead of the trial
court,
+oreover, the petition has no merit as the use of his true and official name %orked no
pre;udice to%ards him,
7,A, 9ABC provides for the follo%ing grounds for %hich a change of first name ma) be
allo%ed@
1, .irst name or nickname ridiculous, tainted %ith dishonor, or e3tremel)
difficult to %rite or pronounceS
:, .irst name or nickname has been habituall) and continuousl) used b)
petitioner and has been publicl) kno%n b) that first name or nickname in the
communit)S or
!, #hange %ill avoid confusion,
B
>ere, Silverio failed to even allege an) pre;udice that he might suffer as a result of
using his true name, >is basis in pra)ing for the change of his first name %as the se3
reassignment to make his name compatible %ith the se3 he thought he transformed
himself into, A change of name does not alter oneGs legal capacit) or civil status, -he
la% does not sanction a change of first name on the ground of se3 reassignment,
7ather than avoiding confusion, granting the petition ma) onl) create complications in
the civil registr) and the public interest,
Jnder 7,A, 9ABC, a correction in the civil registr) involving the change of se3 is not a
mere clerical error, It is a substantial change for %hich the applicable procedure is
7ule 1AC of the 7ules of #ourt, -he entries correctable under 7ule 1AC and Art, B1:
of the #ivil #ode are found in Articles BA and BAC of the same #ode,
D
0o reasonable
4 Section B, 7epublic Act 9ABC,
5 Art, BA, Acts, events, and ;udicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall be
recorded in the civil register,
Art, BAC, -he follo%ing shall be entered in the civil register@
(1$ /irthsS (:$ marriagesS (!$ deathsS (B$ legal separationsS (D$ annulments of marriageS (6$
;udgments declaring marriages void from the beginningS ($ legitimationsS (C$ adoptionsS
(9$ackno%ledgementsS (1A$ naturali(ationS (11$ loss or (1:$ recover) of citi(enshipS (1!$ civil
interdictionS (1B$ ;udicial determination of filiationS (1D$ voluntar) emancipation of a minorS and
(16$ changes of name,
Page 11 of
51
interpretation of the provisions can ;ustif) a conclusion that the) cover correction on
the ground of se3 reassignment,
-o correct means to make or set arightS to remove the faults or error, -o change
means to replace something %ith something else of the same kind or %ith something
that serves as a substitute, -he birth certificate of Silverio contained no error, 0o
correction is necessar),
44. Republic v. Ca8andahan
Topic of SE# under (e8al Capacit*F "octrine. Chan8e of Gender not a mere
t*po8raphical or clerical error7 hence sub>ect to >udicial order.
.acts@ In her petition, she alleged that she %as born as a female in the #ertificate of
*ive /irth but %hile gro%ing up, she developed secondar) male characteristics and
%as diagnosed to have #ongenital Adrenal >)perplasia (#A>$ %hich is a condition
%here persons thus afflicted possess both male and female characteristics, "etitioner
further alleges that for all interests and appearances as %ell as in mind and emotion,
she has become a male person, -hus, she pra)ed that her birth certificate be
corrected such that her gender be changed from female to male and her first name be
changed from 1ennifer to 1eff, (She has both male and female organsH$ #ourt granted
petition, to %hich the &S' countered, sa)ing among others, that 7ule 1AC does not
allo% change of se3 or gender in the birth certificate and respondent's claimed
medical condition kno%n as #A> does not make her a male, and that the local civil
registrar should be impleaded as an indispensable part) ,
Issue@ %hether the trial court erred in ordering the correction of entries in the birth
certificate of respondent to change her se3 or gender, from female to male, on the
ground of her medical condition kno%n as #A>, and her name from <1ennifer< to
<1eff,< under 7ules 1A! and 1AC of the 7ules of #ourt,
>eld@ "etition denied, #agandahan %ins,
7atio@ Article B1: of the #ivil #ode provides@ 0o entr) in a civil register shall be
changed or corrected %ithout a ;udicial order,
-ogether %ith Article !6 of the #ivil #ode, this provision %as amended b) 7,A, 9ABC
in so far as clerical or typographical errors are involved, -he correction or change of
such matters can no% be made through administrative proceedings and %ithout the
need for a ;udicial order, In effect, 7ep, Act 0o, 9ABC removed from the ambit of 7ule
1AC of the 7ules of #ourt the correction of such errors, 7ule 1AC no% applies onl) to
substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil register, In short, a
correction in the civil registr) involving the change of se3 is not a mere clerical or
t)pographical error, It is a substantial change for %hich the applicable procedure is
7ule 1AC of the 7ules of #ourt,
.urther, the medical testimon) proves that #agandahan has this uni4ue condition
%hich makes her feel and appear like a man, In other %ords, the #ourt respects her
congenital condition and her mature decision to be a male, *ife is alread) difficult for
the ordinar) person, 8e cannot but respect ho% respondent deals %ith her
unordinar) state and thus help make her life easier, considering the uni4ue
circumstances in this case, As for her change of name under 7ule 1A!, this #ourt has
held that a change of name is not a matter of right but of ;udicial discretion, to be
e3ercised in the light of the reasons adduced and the conse4uences that %ill follo%,
#onsidering the conse4uence that respondent's change of name merel) recogni(es
his preferred gender, %e find merit in respondent's change of name, Such a change
%ill conform %ith the change of the entr) in her birth certificate from female to male,
-rior e)istin8 marria8e
(ilia Wie8el v. Hon. SemioC"*
9@? SCR @55 ;95AE=
.acts@
Iarl >ein( 8iegel filed a petition for the declaration of nullit) of his marriage
%ith *ilia 8iegel ("etitioner *I*IA$ on the ground of *I*IAGs previous e3isting
marriage to 2duardo +a3ion,
*I*IA admitted the e3istence of her prior marriage to +a3ion but claimed that
their marriage %as null and void because she and +a3ion %ere allegedl)
forced to enter said marital union,
5uring pre=trial, the issue agreed upon b) *I*IA and Iarl 8iegel %as the
status of the first marriage (void or voidableL$,
*I*IA contested validit) of the pre=trial order and asked the court for an
opportunit) to present evidence that@ (1$ 1
st
marriage %as vitiated b) force
e3ercised upon both her and +a3ion and (:$ +a3ion, at the time of their
marriage, %as alread) married to someone else,
>on, Sempio=5) ruled against the presentation f evidence because the
e3istence of force e3erted on *I*IA and +a3ion had alread) been agreed
upon,
*I*IA assailed Sempio=5)Gs &rders (compelling to submit the case for
resolution based on Pagreed factsQ and den)ing motion to present evidence
in her favor$ through a "etition for #ertiorari alleging 'A5A*21,
Issue@ Sempio=5) guilt) of 'A5A*21L
>eld@ 0o, "etition dismissed,
-here is no need for *I*IA to prove that her 1
st
marriage %as vitiated b) force
committed against both parties, because even assuming this to be so, marriage 8I**
0&- /2 V&I5 but merel) voidable, and therefore VA*I5 until annulled, Since there
%as no annulment )et, it is clear that %hen she married Iarl 8iegel, she %as still
validl) married to +a3ion, -hus, her marriage to Iarl is V&I5,
-here is like%ise no need to introduce evidence about the e3isting prior marriage of
+a3ion at the time he and *I*IA %ere married, because even if their marriage %as
void, a ;udicial declaration of such fact is necessar), 8ithout the ;udicial declaration,
*I*IA (for all legal intents and purposes$ %as still regarded as a married %oman at the
Page 12 of
51
time she contracted her marriage %ith Iarl 8iegel, -hus, marriage to Iarl %ould still
be regarded as V&I5 under the la%,
4@. T, v. C
.A#-S@ "rivate respondent married Anna +aria 7egina Villanueva in a civil
ceremon) on +arch :9, 19, in +anila, -hen the) had a church %edding on August
:, 19, >o%ever, on August B, 19CA, the 1uvenile and 5omestic 7elations #ourt of
Uue(on #it) declared their marriage null and void ab initio for lack of a valid marriage
license, -he church %edding on August :, 19, %as also declared null and void ab
initio for lack of consent of the parties,
2ven before the decree %as issued nullif)ing his marriage to Anna +aria, private
respondent %ed &felia ", -), herein petitioner, on April B, 199, in ceremonies
officiated b) the ;udge of the #it) #ourt of "asa), &n April B, 19C:, the) also had a
church %edding in +akati, +etro +anila,
&n 1anuar) !, 1991, private respondent filed a civil case pra)ing that his marriage to
petitioner be declared null and void, >e alleged that the) had no marriage license
%hen the) got married, >e also averred that at the time he married petitioner, he %as
still married to Anna +aria, >e stated that at the time he married petitioner the
decree of nullit) of his marriage to Anna +aria had not been issued, -he decree of
nullit) of his marriage to Anna +aria %as rendered onl) on August B, 19CA, %hile his
civil marriage to petitioner took place on April B, 199,
"etitioner, in defending her marriage to private respondent, pointed out that his claim
that their marriage %as contracted %ithout a valid license is untrue, She submitted
their +arriage *icense 0o, D!999A issued at 7osario, #avite on April !, 199, as
23h, 11, 1: and 1:=A, >e did not 4uestion this document %hen it %as submitted in
evidence, "etitioner also submitted the decision of the 1uvenile and 5omestic
7elations #ourt of Uue(on #it) dated August B, 19CA, %hich declared null and void
his civil marriage to Anna +aria 7egina Villanueva celebrated on +arch :9, 19,
and his church marriage to said Anna +aria on August :, 19, -hese documents
%ere submitted as evidence during trial and, according to petitioner, are therefore
deemed sufficient proof of the facts therein, -he fact that the civil marriage of private
respondent and petitioner took place on April B, 199, before the ;udgment declaring
his prior marriage as null and void is undisputed, It also appears indisputable that
private respondent and petitioner had a church %edding ceremon) on April B, 19C:,
-he "asig 7-# sustained private respondentGs civil suit and declared his marriage to
herein petitioner null and void ab initio in its decision dated 0ovember B, 1991, /oth
parties appealed to respondent #ourt of Appeals, &n 1ul) :B, 1996, the appellate
court affirmed the trial courtGs decision, It ruled that a ;udicial declaration of nullit) of
the first marriage (to Anna +aria$ must first be secured before a subse4uent marriage
could be validl) contracted,
ISSJ2@ 8hether the decree of nullit) of the first marriage is re4uired before a
subse4uent marriage can be entered into validl)
>2*5@ -he provisions of the .amil) #ode re4uiring ;udicial declaration of nullit) of
marriage before a subse4uent marriage can be contracted is not applicable in the
present case, In the present case, the second marriage of private respondent %as
entered into in 199, before 8iegel, -he first marriage of private respondent being
void for lack of license and consent, there %as no need for ;udicial declaration of its
nullit) before he could contract a second marriage, In this case, therefore, %e
conclude that private respondentGs second marriage to petitioner is valid,
-hus, the provisions of the .amil) #ode cannot be retroactivel) applied to the present
case, for to do so %ould pre;udice the vested rights of petitioner and of her children,
As held in 1ison v, #ourt of Appeals, the .amil) #ode has retroactive effect unless
there be impairment of vested rights, In the present case, that impairment of vested
rights of petitioner and the children is patent, Additionall), %e are not 4uite prepared
to give assent to the appellate courtGs finding that despite private respondentGs Pdeceit
and perfid)Q in contracting marriage %ith petitioner, he could benefit from her silence
on the issue, -hus, coming no% to the civil effects of the church ceremon) %herein
petitioner married private respondent using the marriage license used three )ears
earlier in the civil ceremon), %e find that petitioner no% has raised this matter
properl), 2arlier petitioner claimed as untruthful private respondentGs allegation that
he %ed petitioner but the) lacked a marriage license, Indeed %e find there %as a
marriage license, though it %as the same license issued on April !, 199 and used in
both the civil and the church rites, &bviousl), the church ceremon) %as confirmator)
of their civil marriage, As petitioner contends, the appellate court erred %hen it
refused to recogni(e the validit) and salutar) effects of said canonical marriage on a
technicalit), i,e, that petitioner had failed to raise this matter as affirmative defense
during trial, She argues that such failure does not prevent the appellate court from
giving her defense due consideration and %eight, She adds that the interest of the
State in protecting the inviolabilit) of marriage, as a legal and social institution,
out%eighs such technicalit), In our vie%, petitioner and private respondent had
complied %ith all the essential and formal re4uisites for a valid marriage, including the
re4uirement of a valid license in the first of the t%o ceremonies, -hat this license %as
used legall) in the celebration of the civil ceremon) does not detract from the
ceremonial use thereof in the church %edding of the same parties to the marriage, for
%e hold that the latter rites served not onl) to ratif) but also to fortif) the first, -he
appellate court might have its reasons for brushing aside this possible defense of the
defendant belo% %hich undoubtedl) could have tendered a valid issue, but %hich %as
not timel) interposed b) her before the trial court, /ut %e are no% persuaded %e
cannot pla) blind to the absurdit), if not ine4uit), of letting the %rongdoer profit from
%hat the #A calls Phis o%n deceit and perfid),Q
/oselano Guevarra vs. tt*. /ose Emmanuel Eala
.C. !o. B9?E
u8ust 97 4DDB
Page 13 of
51
'acts. &n +arch B, :AA: a complaint of disbarment %as filed before the Integrated
/ar of the "hilippines #ommittee on /ar 5iscipline against Att), 1ose 2mmanuel +,
2ala a,k,a, 0oli 2ala for grossl) immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the
la%)erGs oath, In the #omplaint, 'uevarra first met the respondent in 1anuar) :AAA
%hen his then fiancVe Irene +o;e introduced respondent to him as her friend %ho %as
married to +arianne -antoco %ith %hom he had three children,
After his marriage to Irene on &ctober , :AAA, #omplainant noticed that from
1anuar) to +arch :AA1, Irene had been receiving from respondent #ellphone calls,
as %ell as messages some %hich read PI love )ou,Q PI miss )ou,Q or P+eet )ou at
+egamall,Q >e also noticed that Irene habituall) %ent home ver) late at night or earl)
in the morning of the follo%ing da), and sometimes did not go home from %ork, 8hen
he asked her %hereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parentGs house in
/inangonan, 7i(al or she %as bus) %ith her %ork,
In .ebruar) or +arch :AA1, complainant sa% Irene and 7espondent together on t%o
occasions, &n the second occasion, he confronted them follo%ing %hich Irene
abandoned the con;ugal house, &n April ::, :AA1 complainant %ent uninvited to
IreneGs birthda) celebration at %hich he sa% her and the respondent celebrating %ith
her famil) and friends, &ut of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the
venue immediatel), .ollo%ing that incident, Irene %ent to the con;ugal house and
hauled off all her personal belongings, #omplainant later found a hand%ritten letter
dated &ctober , :AA, the da) of his %edding to Irene, #omplainant soon sa%
respondentGs car and that of Irene constantl) parked at 0o, 1=/11 Street, 0e%
+anila %here as he %as later learn sometime in April :AA1, Irene %as alread)
residing, >e also learned still later that %hen his friends sa% Irene on about 1anuar)
1C, :AA: together %ith respondent during a concert, she %as pregnant,
Issue. 8hether #oncubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the reason for the
disbarment of Att), 1ose 2mmanuel 2ala,
Held. *a%)erGs oath stated that a la%)er should support the #onstitution and obe)
the la%s, +eaning he shall not make use of deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct, grossl) immoral conduct, or be convicted in an) crime involving moral
turpitude, In the case at bar Att), 2ala %as accused of #oncubinage, under A7-, !!B
of the 7evised "enal #ode, P An) husband %ho shall keep a mistress in a con;ugal
d%elling, or, shall have se3ual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, %ith a
%oman %ho is not his %ife, or shall cohabit %ith her in an) other place, shall be
punished b) prision correccional in its minimum and medium period, Section : of
A7-, WV states that P+arriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of
the famil) and shall be protected b) the state, 7espondentGs grossl) immoral conduct
runs afoul of the constitution and the la%s, that he as a la%)er has s%orn to uphold,
>ence the court declared Att), 1ose 2mmanul +, 2ala 5IS/A7725 for grossl)
immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and violation of canon 1, 7ule 1,A1
and #anon , 7ule ,A! of the #ode of "rofessional 7esponsibilit),
uthorit* of SolemniGin8 $fficer
2eso v. "a8uman
.A#-S@ Menaida S, /eso charged 1udge 1uan 1, 5aguman, 1r, %ith solemni(ing
marriage outside his ;urisdiction and of negligence in not retaining a cop) and not
registering the marriage contract %ith the office of the *ocal #ivil 7egistrar,
1udge 5aguman is a municipal ;udge of Sta, +argarita, Samar, >e solemni(ed the
marriage of /eso in his residence in 1,",7, Subdivision in #alba)og #it), Samar,
ISSJ2@ 8hether or not 5aguman is liable for solemni(ing marriage outside his area
of ;urisdiction,
>2*5@ N2S, As presiding ;udge of the +#-# Sta, +argarita -arangnan="agsan;an,
Samar, the authorit) to solemni(e marriage is onl) limited to those municipalities
under his ;urisdiction, #learl), #alba)og #it) is no longer %ithin his area of
;urisdiction,
-here are onl) ! instances, as provided b) Article C of the .#, %herein a marriage
ma) be solemni(ed b) a ;udge outside of his chambers or at a place other than his
sala, to %it@
1,%hen either or both of the contracting parties is at the point of deathS
:,%hen the residence of either part) is located in a remote placeS
!,%here both of the parties re4uest the solemni(ing officer in %riting in %hich case the
marriage ma) be solemni(ed at a house or place designated b) them in a s%orn
statement to that effect,
In this case, there is no pretense that either /eso or his fiancV Nman %as at
the point of death or in a remote place, 0either %as there a s%orn %ritten re4uest
made b) the contracting parties to the 1udge that the marriage be solemni(ed outside
his chambers or at a place other than his sala, 8hat, in fact appears on record is that
respondent 1udge %as prompted more b) urgenc) to solemni(e the marriage
because /eso %as an overseas %orker,
1udges %ho are appointed to specific ;urisdiction ma) officiate in %eddings
onl) %ithin said areas and not be)ond, 8here a ;udge solemni(es a marriage outside
his courtGs ;urisdiction, there is a resultant irregularit) in the formal re4uisites laid
do%n in Article !, %hich %hile it ma) not affect the validit) of the marriage, ma)
sub;ect the officiating official to administrative liabilit),
4B ranes v $cciano
.acts@ +erceditas Aranes charged 1udge &cciano %ith gross ignorance of the la% in
a letter complaint because said ;udge solemni(ed her marriage (.eb, 1, :AAA$ %ith
Page 14 of
51
5ominador &robia outside of his territorial ;urisdiction and %ithout the re4uisite
marriage license, She and &robia rel)ing on the TmarriageG lived together as husband
and %ife for man) )ears but on his death she %as deprived of inheriting from him
because their marriage %as a nullit), She %as like%ise deprived of receiving &robiaGs
pension from the nav),
In his comment, the 1udge said that on .eb, 1D, :AAA, a 1uan Arro)o asked him to
solemni(e the marriage bet%een the parties on the assurance that all the necessar)
documents %ere complete,>e agreed to conduct the %edding at 0abua because
&robia suffered from a stroke and couldnGt travel to /alatan, &n the da) of the
%edding, he noticed that no marriage license %as presented and he informed the
parties that their marriage %ill be a nullit) and had %anted to move the date of the
%edding but out of human compassion decided to continue because the visitors %ere
alread) coming in, the deliver) of provisions for the reception, the possibilit) of further
aggravating &robiaGs condition (nastroke$ and the parties assured him that the) %ill
give him the license the afternoon of the same da), 0o license %as ever delivered,
Aranes later desisted upon reali(ation that it %as her fault /J- the &ffice of the #ourt
Administrator still found the ;udge guilt) of solemni(ing a marriage %ithout a dul)
issued marriage license and for doing so outside his territorial ;urisdiction and %as
fined DI,
ISSJ2@ 8hether the decision is correctL
>2*5@ -amaH Jnder the 1udiciar) 7eorgani(ation Act of 19CA, or /,",1:9, the
authorit* of the re8ional trial court >ud8es and >ud8es of inferior courts to
solemniGe marria8es is confined to their territorial >urisdiction as defined b) the
Supreme #ourt, 1udge &cciano onl) had ;urisdiction to solemni(e marriages in
/alatan and not 0abua and he should be held administrativel) liable for violating the
la% on marriage, >e should also be faulted for solemni(ing a marriage %ithout the
re4uisite marriage license because thatGs considered a gross ignorance of the la%,
-he fact of desistance of Aranes doesnGt e3culpate him from liabilit), 5isciplinar)
actions like this arenGt private matters, the #ourt has the po%er to discipline ;udges,
4A. !+RR$ v. "$%GT$,
1acts$
#omplainant +unicipal +a)or 0avarro filed an administrative case against +unicipal
#ircuit -rial #ourt 1udge 5omagto) for gross misconduct, inefficienc) in office and
ignorance of the la%, .irst, he solemni(ed a %edding despite kno%ing that the groom
is merel) separated from his first %ife, Second, he performed another marriage
ceremon) outside his courtGs ;urisdiction, >is ;urisdiction %as Sta, +onica=/urgos,
Surigao del 0orte, but he solemni(ed the %edding at his residence in 5apa,
1udge 5omagto) seeks e3culpation from his act of having solemni(ed the %edding of
a married man because he merel) relied on the Affidavit issued b) the +-# 1udge
confirming the fact that the husband has not seen his first %ife for almost )ears,
7egarding the second charge, he did not violate Art, , par, 1 of the .# (marriage
ma) be solemni(ed b) an) incumbent member of the ;udiciar) %ithin the courtGs
;urisdiction$ and that Art,C applies@ P-he marriage shall be solemni(ed publicl) in the
chambers of the ;udge or in open court, in the churchRand not else%here, e3cept in
cases of marriages contracted on the point of death or in remote placesRor %here
both parties re4uest the solemni(ing officer in %riting in %hich case the marriage ma)
be solemni(ed at a house or place designated b) them in a s%orn statementRQ
Issues$
Should he have solemni(ed the %edding to another of a married man on the basis of
an affidavit of presumptive deathL O 0&
5id the ;udge have the authorit) to solemni(e the other %edding outside his courtGs
;urisdictionL O 0&
Ratio$
+ummary #roceeding for 'eclaration of #resumptive 'eath "ecessary
.or the purpose of contracting a subse4uent marriage, the spouse present must
institute a summar) proceeding as provided in the .# for the declaration of the death
of the absentee, Absent this ;udicial declaration, the husband remains married to his
first %ife, Such neglect or ignorance of the la% has resulted in a bigamous marriage
under Article !D, par, B (those bigamous marriage not falling under Art, B1$,
)uthority of the udge
Article C, %hich is a director) provision, refers onl) to the venue of the marriage
ceremon) and does not alter or 4ualif) the authorit) of the solemni(ing officer as
provided under Art, , 1udges %ho are appointed to specific ;urisdictions ma) officiate
in %eddings onl) %ithin said areas and not be)ond, 8here a ;udge solemni(es a
marriage outside his courtGs ;urisdiction, there is a resultant irregularit) in the formal
re4uisite, %hich %hile not affecting the validit) of the marriage, ma) sub;ect the
officiating official to administrative liabilit),
%arria8e (icense
'ilipina ,. S* v. C
'acts. .ilipina S) and .ernando S) got married on 19!, -he) %ere blessed %ith :
children, .ilipina filed a petition for the declaration of absolute nullit) of marriage on
the ground of ps)chological incapacit), -he 7-# denied the petition, %hich %as later
on affirmed b) the #A, +7 %as denied as %ell, >ence, this appeal b) certiorari,
"etitioner, for the first time, is raising the issue that there is an absence of a marriage
license at the time of the ceremon), -he date of issue of the marriage license and
marriage certificate is September 1B, 95B@, %hile the date of the celebration of the
marriage is on 0ovember 1D, 95B?,
Issue@ 8hether or not the marriage bet%een the parties is void from the beginning for
lack of a marriage license at the time of the ceremon)
>eld@ Nes, -he marriage license %as issued almost one )ear after the ceremon) took
place, -herefore, the marriage %as indeed contracted %ithout a marriage license,
Page 15 of
51
Article CA of the #ivil #ode is applicable in this case, -here being no claim of an
e3ceptional character, he purported marriage bet%een petitioner and private
respondent could not be classified among those enumerated in Article :=9 of the
#ivil #ode, Jnder Article CA of the #ivil #ode, the marriage bet%een petitioner and
private respondent is V&I5 from the beginning,
-he issue on ps)chological incapacit) is mooted b) the conclusion that the marriage
is void ab initio for lack of a marriage license at the time the marriage %as
solemni(ed,
REI!E( !TH$!, 2. "E CSTR$7 -etitioner7 vs. !!2E((E SSI"$C"E
CSTR$7 Respondent.
"etitioner and respondent met and became s%eethearts in 1991, -he) planned to get
married, thus the) applied for a marriage license %ith the &ffice of the #ivil 7egistrar
of "asig #it) in September 199B, -he) had their first se3ual relation sometime in
&ctober 199B, and had regularl) engaged in se3 thereafter, 8hen the couple %ent
back to the &ffice of the #ivil 7egistrar, the marriage license had alread) e3pired,
-hus, in order to push through %ith the plan, in lieu of a marriage license, the)
e3ecuted an affidavit dated 1! +arch 199D stating that the) had been living together
as husband and %ife for at least five )ears, -he couple got married on the same date,
%ith 1udge 1ose #, /ernabe, presiding ;udge of the +etropolitan -rial #ourt of "asig
#it), administering the civil rites, 0evertheless, after the ceremon), petitioner and
respondent %ent back to their respective homes and did not live together as husband
and %ife, 7espondent filed a complaint for support against petitioner before the
7egional -rial #ourt, In her complaint, respondent alleged that she is married to
petitioner and that the latter has failed on his responsibilit)?obligation to financiall)
support her as his %ife and 7einna -ricia as his child,
"etitioner denied that he is married to respondent, claiming that their marriage is void
ab initio since the marriage %as facilitated b) a fake affidavitS and that he %as merel)
prevailed upon b) respondent to sign the marriage contract to save her from
embarrassment and possible administrative prosecution due to her pregnant stateS
and that he %as not able to get parental advice from his parents before he got
married, >e also averred that the) never lived together as husband and %ife and that
he has never seen nor ackno%ledged the child, -rial court ruled that the marriage
bet%een petitioner and respondent is not valid because it %as solemni(ed %ithout a
marriage license, >o%ever, it declared petitioner as the natural father of the child, and
thus obliged to give her support, "etitioner elevated the case to the #ourt of Appeals,
arguing that the lo%er court committed grave abuse of discretion %hen, on the basis
of mere belief and con;ecture, it ordered him to provide support to the child %hen the
latter is not, and could not have been, his o%n child,
ISSJ2S@ .irst, %hether the trial court had the ;urisdiction to determine the validit) of
the marriage bet%een petitioner and respondent in an action for support and second,
Anent the first issue, the #ourt holds that the trial court had ;urisdiction to determine
the validit) of the marriage bet%een petitioner and respondent, -he validit) of a void
marriage ma) be collaterall) attacked, >o%ever, other than for purposes of
remarriage, no ;udicial action is necessar) to declare a marriage an absolute nullit),
.or other purposes, such as but not limited to determination of heirship, legitimac) or
illegitimac) of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution of propert) regime, or a
criminal case for that matter, the court ma) pass upon the validit) of marriage even in
a suit not directl) instituted to 4uestion the same so long as it is essential to the
determination of the case, -his is %ithout pre;udice to an) issue that ma) arise in the
case, 8hen such need arises, a final ;udgment of declaration of nullit) is necessar)
even if the purpose is other than to remarr), -he clause is the basis of a final
;udgment declaring such previous marriage void in Article BA of the .amil) #ode
connotes that such final ;udgment need not be obtained onl) for purpose of
remarriage,
-he falsit) of the affidavit cannot be considered as a mere irregularit) in the formal
re4uisites of marriage, -he la% dispenses %ith the marriage license re4uirement for a
man and a %oman %ho have lived together and e3clusivel) %ith each other as
husband and %ife for a continuous and unbroken period of at least five )ears before
the marriage, -he aim of this provision is to avoid e3posing the parties to humiliation,
shame and embarrassment concomitant %ith the scandalous cohabitation of persons
outside a valid marriage due to the publication of ever) applicantGs name for a
marriage license, In the instant case, there %as no scandalous cohabitation to
protectS in fact, there %as no cohabitation at all, -he false affidavit %hich petitioner
and respondent e3ecuted so the) could push through %ith the marriage has no value
%hatsoeverS it is a mere scrap of paper, -he) %ere not e3empt from the marriage
license re4uirement, -heir failure to obtain and present a marriage license renders
their marriage void ab initio,
%arria8es e)empt from marria8e license
!inal v. 2ada*o8
0ote@ -his digest is for the e3emption to marriage license doctrine, #ase is also
discussed under declaration of nullit),
.acts@ "epito 0ial %as married to -eodulfa /ellones on September :6, 19B, &ut of
their marriage %ere born herein petitioners(20'7A#2 0IA* for >erself and as
'uardian ad *item of the minors /A/N*I02, I0'7I5, A7#>I2 X "2"I-& 0IA*, 17,$
, -eodulfa %as shot b) "epito resulting in her death on April :B, 19CD, &ne )ear and C
months thereafter or on 5ecember 11, 19C6, "epito and respondent 0orma /ada)og
got married %ithout an) marriage license, In lieu thereof, "epito and 0orma e3ecuted
an affidavit dated 5ecember 11, 19C6 stating that the) had lived together as husband
and %ife for at least five )ears and %ere thus e3empt from securing a marriage
license,
&n .ebruar) 19, 199, "epito died in a car accident, After "epitoGs death, petitioners
filed a petition for declaration of nullit) of the marriage of "epito to 0orma alleging
that the said marriage %as void for lack of a marriage license, -he case %as filed
Page 16 of
51
under the assumption that the validit) or invalidit) of the second marriage %ould affect
their successional rights, 0orma filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that
petitioners have no cause of action since the) are not among the persons %ho could
file an action for <annulment of marriage< under Article B of the .amil) #ode,
1udge .erdinand +arcos of the 7-# said the .amil) #ode %as silent, obscure and
inefficient in resolving@ a$ petitionerGs cause of action, b$ 8&0 "epitoGs second
marriage %as null and void and c$ 8&0 the plaintiffs are stopped from assailing the
validit) of the :
nd
marriage considering it %as dissolved b) "epitoGs death, >e ruled
that the action should have been filed before "epitoGs death,
Issue@ 8&0 the) "epito 0ial and 0orma /ada)og %ere e3empt from a marriage
license,
>eld@ 0o, 0ot having met the marriagle license re4uirement, their marriage is null and
void,
7atio@ -he t%o marriages involved herein having been solemni(ed prior to the
effectivit) of the .amil) #ode (.#$, the applicable la% to determine their validit) is the
#ivil #ode %hich %as the la% in effect at the time of their celebration, A valid marriage
license is a re4uisite of marriage under Article D! of the #ivil #ode, the absence of
%hich renders the marriage void ab initio pursuant to Article CA(!$ in relation to Article
DC, -he re4uirement and issuance of marriage license is the States demonstration of
its involvement and participation in ever) marriage, in the maintenance of %hich the
general public is interested, -his interest proceeds from the constitutional mandate
that the State recogni(es the sanctit) of famil) life and of affording protection to the
famil) as a basic <autonomous social institution,<
>o%ever, there are several instances recogni(ed b) the #ivil #ode %herein a
marriage license is dispensed %ith, one of %hich is that provided in Article 6,
referring to the marriage of a man and a %oman %ho have lived together and
e3clusivel) %ith each other as husband and %ife for a continuous and unbroken
period of at least five )ears before the marriage, -he rationale %h) no license is
re4uired in such case is to avoid e3posing the parties to humiliation, shame and
embarrassment concomitant %ith the scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a
valid marriage due to the publication of ever) applicants name for a marriage license,
-he publicit) attending the marriage license ma) discourage such persons from
legitimi(ing their status,
-here is no dispute that the marriage of "epito to 0orma /ada)og %as celebrated
%ithout an) marriage license, In lieu thereof, the) e3ecuted an affidavit stating that
<the) have attained the age of ma;orit), and, being unmarried, have lived together as
husband and %ife for at least five )ears, and that %e no% desire to marr) each other,<
-he onl) issue that needs to be resolved pertains to %hat nature of cohabitation is
contemplated under Article 6 of the #ivil #ode to %arrant the counting of the five
)ear period in order to e3empt the future spouses from securing a marriage license,
Should it be a cohabitation %herein both parties are capacitated to marr) each other
during the entire five=)ear continuous period or should it be a cohabitation %herein
both parties have lived together and e3clusivel) %ith each other as husband and %ife
during the entire five=)ear continuous period regardless of %hether there is a legal
impediment to their being la%full) married, %hich impediment ma) have either
disappeared or intervened sometime during the cohabitation periodL
8orking on the assumption that "epito and 0orma have lived together as husband
and %ife for five )ears %ithout the benefit of marriage, that five=)ear period should be
computed on the basis of a cohabitation as <husband and %ife< %here the onl)
missing factor is the special contract of marriage to validate the union, In other %ords,
the five=)ear common=la% cohabitation period, %hich is counted back from the date of
celebration of marriage, should be a period of legal union had it not been for the
absence of the marriage, -his D=)ear period should be the )ears immediatel) before
the da) of the marriage and it should be a period of cohabitation characteri(ed b)
e3clusivit) meaning no third part) %as involved at an) time %ithin the D )ears and
continuit) that is unbroken, &ther%ise, if that continuous D=)ear cohabitation is
computed %ithout an) distinction as to %hether the parties %ere capacitated to marr)
each other during the entire five )ears, then the la% %ould be sanctioning immoralit)
and encouraging parties to have common la% relationships and placing them on the
same footing %ith those %ho lived faithfull) %ith their spouse,
In this case, at the time of "epito and /ada)ogGs marriage, it cannot be said that the)
have lived %ith each other as husband and %ife for at least five )ears prior to their
%edding da), .rom the time "epitos first marriage %as dissolved to the time of his
marriage %ith respondent, onl) about t%ent) months had elapsed, 2ven assuming
that "epito and his first %ife had separated in fact, and thereafter both "epito and
respondent had started living %ith each other that has alread) lasted for five )ears,
the fact remains that their five=)ear period cohabitation %as not the cohabitation
contemplated b) la%, It should be in the nature of a perfect union that is valid under
the la% but rendered imperfect onl) b) the absence of the marriage contract, "epito
had a subsisting marriage at the time %hen he started cohabiting %ith respondent, It
is immaterial that %hen the) lived %ith each other, "epito had alread) been separated
in fact from his la%ful spouse, -he subsistence of the marriage even %here there %as
actual severance of the filial companionship bet%een the spouses cannot make an)
cohabitation b) either spouse %ith an) third part) as being one as <husband and
%ife<,
2$R/C%!H!$ +. S!CHEH >erminia /or;a=+ariano %as married to the late 5avid +an(ano on +a) :1, 1966,
-he) had four children, >o%ever, on +arch ::, 199!, 5avid contracted another
marriage %ith *u(viminda "a)ao before Infanta, "angasinan +-# 1udge 7o4ue
Sanche(, 5uring that time, "a)ao %as also married to 5omingo 7elos, "a)ao and
Page 17 of
51
5avid issued an affidavit stating that the) %ere both married ho%ever due to
incessant 4uarrels, the) both left their families and the) no longer communicated %ith
them, -he) have lived together as husband and %ife for )ears, 1udge agreed to
solemni(e the marriage, >erminia filed charges of gross ignorance of the la% against
Sanche(,
ISSJ2@ 8hether or not 5avid +an(anoGs marriage %ith "a)ao is validL
7J*I0'@ .or Article !B of the .amil) #ode (legal ratification of marital cohabitation$ to
appl), the follo%ing re4uisites must concur@
1, -he man and %oman must have been living together as husband and %ife
for at least five )ears before the marriageS
:, -he parties must have no legal impediment to marr) each otherS
!, -he fact of absence of legal impediment bet%een the parties must be
present at the time of marriageS
B, -he parties must e3ecute an affidavit stating that the) have lived together for
at least five )ears Eand are %ithout legal impediment to marr) each otherFS
and
D, -he solemni(ing officer must e3ecute a s%orn statement that he had
ascertained the 4ualifications of the parties and that he had found no legal
impediment to their marriage,
0ot all of these re4uirements are present in the case at bar, It is significant to note
that in their separate affidavits e3ecuted on +arch ::, 199! and s%orn to before
respondent 1udge himself, 5avid +an(ano and *u(viminda "a)ao e3pressl) stated
the fact of their prior e3isting marriage, Also, in their marriage contract, it %as
indicated that both %ere Pseparated,Q 7espondent 1udge kne% or ought to kno% that
a subsisting previous marriage is a diriment impediment, %hich %ould make the
subse4uent marriage null and void, In fact, in his #omment, he stated that had he
kno%n that the late +an(ano %as married he %ould have discouraged him from
contracting another marriage, And respondent 1udge cannot den) kno%ledge
of +an(anoGs and "a)aoGs subsisting previous marriage, as the same %as clearl)
stated in their separate affidavits %hich %ere subscribed and s%orn to before him,
-he fact that +an(ano and "a)ao had been living apart from their respective spouses
for a long time alread) is immaterial, Article 6!(1$ of the .amil) #ode allo%s spouses
%ho have obtained a decree of legal separation to live separatel) from each other, but
in such a case the marriage bonds are not severed, 2lse%ise stated, legal separation
does not dissolve the marriage tie, much less authori(e the parties to remarr), -his
holds true all the more %hen the separation is merel) de facto, as in the case at bar,
1ust like separation, free and voluntar) cohabitation %ith another person for at least
five )ears does not sever the tie of a subsisting previous marriage, +arital
cohabitation for a long period of time bet%een t%o individuals %ho are legall)
capacitated to marr) each other is merel) a ground for e3emption from marriage
license, It could not serve as a ;ustification for respondent 1udge to solemni(e a
subse4uent marriage vitiated b) the impediment of a prior e3isting marriage,
RE-U2(IC +S. ",$T
'CTS. 1ose and .elisa 5a)ot %ere married, *ater on, 1ose filed a complaint for
annulment or declaration of nullit) of marriage %ith the 7-#, >e contended that his
marriage %ith .elisa %as a sham, -here %as no marriage ceremon)S his consent to
the marriage %as secured through fraudS the affidavit of marital cohabitation %as
false, >o%ever, the petition %as dismissed, -he #A like%ise affirmed, /ut then it
changed its mind and ruled in favor of 1ose,
ISSUE. 8&0 the falsit) of the affidavit of marital cohabitation rendered the marriage
void ab initioLLL
RU(I!G. N2S,
-he e3ception of a marriage license under Article 6 applies onl) to those %ho have
lived together as husband and %ife for at least five )ears and desire to marr) each
other, -he #ivil #ode, in no ambiguous terms, places a minimum period re4uirement
of five )ears of cohabitation, 0o other reading of the la% can be had, since the
language of Article 6 is precise, -he minimum re4uisite of five )ears of cohabitation
is an indispensabilit) carved in the language of the la%, .or a marriage celebrated
under Article 6 to be valid, this material fact cannot be dispensed %ith, It is embodied
in the la% not as a director) re4uirement, but as one that partakes of a mandator)
character, It is %orth) to mention that Article 6 also prescribes that the contracting
parties shall state the re4uisite facts in an affidavit before an) person authori(ed b)
la% to administer oathsS and that the official, priest or minister %ho solemni(ed the
marriage shall also state in an affidavit that he took steps to ascertain the ages and
other 4ualifications of the contracting parties and that he found no legal impediment to
the marriage,
It is indubitabl) established that 1ose and .elisa have not lived together for five )ears
at the time the) e3ecuted their s%orn affidavit and contracted marriage, -he 7epublic
admitted that 1ose and .elisa started living together onl) in 1une 19C6, or barel) five
months before the celebration of their marriage, -he #ourt of Appeals also noted
.elisa's testimon) that 1ose %as introduced to her b) her neighbor, -eresita "er%el,
sometime in .ebruar) or +arch 19C6 after the 25SA 7evolution, -he appellate court
also cited .elisa's o%n testimon) that it %as onl) in 1une 19C6 %hen 1ose
commenced to live in her house,
!onCEssential Re1uirements. %arria8e Certificate
52*'A5& V,7JS-IA
nonuevo vs Intestate Estate of Rodolfo /alandoni
.acts@ 7odolfo 1aladoni died intestate, /ernadino 1alandoni (7odolfoGs brother$ filed a
petitioner for issuance of letters of administration, "etitioners and their siblings filed a
manifestation that the) %ere the children of S)lvia %ho in turn %as the child of Isabel
Page 18 of
51
/lee %ith one 1ohn 5esantis, 0ote ho%ever that Isabel /lee %as allegedl) legall)
married to 7odolfo 1alandoni at the time of the latterGs death (hence, petitioners are
supposedl) 7odolfoGs grandchildren$,
"etitioners presented : marriage certificates bet%een Isabel and 7odolfo
and S)lviaGs birth certificate, "etitioners assert that these pieces of evidence are
enough to establish that Isabel %as the spouse of 7odolfo and as such, the) are the
la%ful representatives, >o%ever, /ernardino begged to differ, 0otabl), the birth
certificate of S)lvia stated that she %as the legitimate child of Isabel and 1ohn
5esantis %hich %ould negate the claim that Isabel %as legall) married to 7odolfo,
-he intestate court allo%ed the petitioners to intervene because it %as
convinced that the evidence ade4uatel) established IsabelGs status as 7odolfoGs %ife,
#A reversed this ruling of the trial court,
Issue@ %hether the evidence %as sufficient to establish IsabelGs marriage to 7odolfoL
0&H
>eld@ 8hile a marriage certificate is considered the primar) evidence of a marital
union, it is not regarded as the sole and e3clusive evidence of marriage,
1urisprudence teaches that the fact of marriage ma) be proven b) relevant evidence
other than the marriage certificate, >ence, even a personGs birth certificate ma) be
recogni(ed as competent evidence of the marriage of oneGs parents,
>ere, the birth certificate of S)lvia serves as the competent evidence to
prove IsabelGs marriage to 1ohn 5esantis and not 7odolfo, -he entr) of being a
legitimate child of S)lvia and 1ohn in the birth certificate is accorded prima facie
%eight and %ill be presumed to be true unless rebutted, "etitioners did not rebut this,
-he) merel) tried to e3plain that these %ere untruthful statements,
-his birth certificate sho%s that Isabel %as previousl) married to 1ohn
5esantis, #onse4uentl), absent an) proof that that such marriage %as dissolved
leads to the inescapable conclusion that IsabelGs marriage to 7odolfo %as void ab
initio,
"ote$ important consideration in this case is the fact that the marriage certificate
showed the marriage between Isabel and Rodolfo to have taken place in 4567while
+ylvia was born in 4589. 3hus, it would really appear that Isabel was originally
married to ohn 'esantis. "o evidence was shown to prove that such marriage was
terminated before the marriage to Rodolfo in 4567.
'orei8n "ivorce
+an "orn v. Romillo
1oreign 'ivorce
.A#-S@ "etitioner, Alice Van 5orn is a .ilipino citi(en %hile private respondent,
7ichard Jpton is a citi(en of the J,S, -he) %ere married in >ongkong in 19:, but
established their residence in the "hilippines, In 19C:, the parties %ere divorced in
0evada, J,S, and the petitioner has re=married also in 0evada to -heodore Van
5orn,
In 19C!, 7ichard filed a suit against Alice in 7-#, stating that AliceGs business (the
'alleon Shop$ is a con;ugal propert), >e is asking for an accounting of the business
to be rendered, and seeking to be declared %ith right to manage the con;ugal
propert), Alice moved to dismiss on the ground that the cause of action is barred b)
previous ;udgment in the divorce proceedings before the 0evada #ourt %here
7ichard had ackno%ledged that he and Alice had no communit) propert),
-he #ourt belo% denied the +-5 on the ground that the propert) is located in the
"hilippines so that the 5ivorce 5ecree has no bearing in the case, -he denial is the
sub;ect of this #ertiorari proceeding,
ISSJ2@ 8hat is the effect of the foreign divorce on the parties and their alleged
con;ugal propert) in the "hilippinesL
>2*5@ A divorce decree granted b) a J,S, #ourt bet%een a .ilipina and her American
husband is binding on the American husband, -he decree is therefore binding upon
7ichard, being a citi(en of the J,S,
It is true that o%ing to the nationalit) principle embodied in Art, 1D of the ##, onl)
"hilippine nationals are covered b) the polic) against absolute divorces the same
being considered contrar) to our concept of public polic) and moralit), >o%ever,
aliens ma) obtain divorces abroad, %hich ma) be recogni(ed here in the "hilippines,
provided the) are valid according to their national la%, In this case, the divorce in
0evada released 7ichard from the marriage from the standards of American la%,
under %hich divorce dissolves marriage,
An American granted absolute divorce in his countr) %ith his .ilipina %ife is estopped
from asserting his rights over propert) allegedl) held in the "hilippines as con;ugal
propert), "ursuant to his national la%, 7ichard is no longer the husband of Alice, >e
%ould have no standing to sue in the case belo% as AliceGs husband entitled to
e3ercise control over con;ugal assets, As he is bound b) the decision of his o%n
countr)Gs court, %hich validl) e3ercised ;urisdiction over him, and %hose decision he
did not repudiate, he is estopped b) his o%n representation before said court from
asserting his right over the alleged con;ugal propert),
-o maintain that under our la%s, Alice has to be considered still married to 7ichard
and still sub;ect to a %ifeGs obligation cannot be ;ust, Alice should not be obliged to live
together %ith, observe respect and fidelit), and render support to 7ichard, She should
not be discriminated against in her o%n countr) if the ends of ;ustice are to be served,
#etition is granted.
Garcia vs Recio
Page 19 of
51
7ecio, a .ilipino, married Samson, an Australian, here in the "hilippines, -he) lived
as husband and %ife in Australia, A fe% )ears later, a decree of divorce, purportedl)
dissolving the marriage, %as issued b) an Australian famil) court,
After a fe% )ears, 7ecio became an Australian citi(en, >e married a 'arcia in
#abanatuan, >o%ever, the) separated %ithout prior ;udicial dissolution of their
marriage, 'arcia filed a complaint for declaration of nullit) of marriage on the ground
of bigam), She contends that 7ecioGs marriage %ith Samson %as still subsisting %hen
the) got married,
'arcia@ based on the first paragraph of Article :6 of the .#, marriages solemni(ed
abroad are governed b) the la% of the place %here the) %ere celebrated (the le: loci
celebrationis$, In effect, the #ode re4uires the presentation of the foreign la% to sho%
the conformit) of the marriage in 4uestion to the legal re4uirements of the place
%here the marriage %as performed,
Issue@
S#@ case 72+A0525 in the interest of orderl) procedure and substantial ;ustice, so
that respondent can present evidence that he had the legal capacit) to marr)
petitioner
- /efore a foreign ;udgment is given preseumptive evidentiar) value, the
document must be 1
st
presented and admitted in evidence, A divorce
obtained abroad is proven b) the divorce decree itself, In this case, the
divorce decree bet%een respondent and 2ditha Samson appears to be an
authentic one issued b) an Australian famil) court, >o%ever, appearance is
not sufficientS compliance %ith the pertinent rules on evidence must be
demonstrated
6
, /ut since 'arciaGs counsel did not ob;ect to its admissibilit),
then the *# %as correct in admitting the evidence of the divorce decree
issued b) the Australian court,
- /urden of "roving Australian *a%@ -he burden of proof lies %ith Pthe part)
%ho alleges the e3istence of a fact or thing necessar) in the prosecution or
defense of an action,Q
- -he legal capacit) to contract marriage is determined b) the national la% of
the part) concerned, -he certificate mentioned in Article :1 of the .amil)
#ode %ould have been sufficient to establish the legal capacit) of
respondent, had he dul) presented it in court, A dul) authenticated and
admitted certificate is prima facie evidence of legal capacit) to marr) on the
part of the alien applicant for a marriage license, /ut here, 7ecio has not
presented an) evidence to prove his legal capacit) to marr) 'arcia,
- -he divorce decree did not ipso facto clothed respondent %ith the legal
capacit) to remarr) %ithout re4uiring him to adduce sufficient evidence to
sho% the Australian personal la% governing his statusS or at the ver) least, to
prove his legal capacit) to contract the second marriage,
6 Jnder Sections :B and :D of 7ule 1!:, on the other hand, a %riting or document ma) be
proven as a public or official record of a foreign countr) b) either (1$ an official publication or (:$
a cop) thereof attested b) the officer having legal custod) of the document, If the record is not
kept in the "hilippines, such cop) must be (a$ accompanied b) a certificate issued b) the proper
diplomatic or consular officer in the "hilippine foreign service stationed in the foreign countr) in
%hich the record is kept and (b$ authenticated b) the seal of his office,

?A. morCCatalan v. C
.elicitas Amor=#atalan married &rlando #atalan on 1une 19DA in "angasinan, -he)
migrated to the JS and became naturali(ed American citi(ens, -he) divorced in
19CC,
: months after the divorce, &rlando married +erope in "angasinan, .elicitas filed a
petition for declaration of nullit) of marriage against +erope, contending that she had
a subsisting marriage %ith 2usebio /ristol, She also %anted damages, claiming that
the marriage brought her embarrassment,
7-# ruled for .elicitas, It declared the &rlando=+erope marriage null and void for
being bigamous and a%arded damaged to .elicitas, #A reversed,
Issue@ 5oes .elicitas have standing to 4uestion the nullit) of the &rlando=+erope
marriageL
7uling@ -his issue ma) not be resolved %ithout first determining %hether .elicitas and
&rlando had indeed become naturali(ed American citi(ens and %hether the) had
actuall) been divorced,
&ther than allegations in the complaint, records are bereft of evidence to prove their
naturali(ation, .elicitas merel) alleged in her complaint that the) had ac4uired
American citi(enship and &rlando also onl) alleged their divorce, A divorce obtained
abroad b) an alien ma) be recogni(ed in our ;urisdiction, provided such decree is
valid according to the national la% of the foreigner,

>o%ever, before it can be
recogni(ed b) our courts, the part) pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and
demonstrate its conformit) to the foreign la% allo%ing it, %hich must be proved
considering that our courts cannot take ;udicial notice of foreign la%s, Also, the kind of
divorce obtained is important, since there is an absolute divorce (vincula matrimonii$
%hich severs the marital ties, and a limited divorce (mensa et thoro$, %hich leaves the
bond in full force,
Jnder the 0## %hich is the la% in force at the time &rlando and +erope %ere
married, and even in the .amil) #ode, there is no specific provision as to %ho can file
a petition to declare the nullit) of marriage, &nl) a part) %ho can demonstrate <proper
interest< can file the same, A petition to declare the nullit) of marriage, like an) other
actions, must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real part) in
interest and must be based on a cause of action,

Section :(a$ of 3he Rule on
'eclaration of )bsolute "ullity of &oid Marriages and )nnulment of &oidable
Marriages, %hich took effect on +arch 1D, :AA!, no% provides that onl) the husband
or the %ife ma) file a petition for declaration of absolute nullit),
>ence, a remand of the case to the trial court for reception of additional evidence is
necessar) to determine %hether respondent &rlando %as granted a divorce decree
and %hether the foreign la% %hich granted the same allo%s or restricts remarriage, If
it is proved that a valid divorce decree %as obtained and the same did not allo%
respondent &rlandoGs remarriage, then the trial court should declare respondentsG
Page 20 of
51
marriage as bigamous and void ab initio but reduce the amount of damages, &n the
contrar), if it is proved that a valid divorce decree %as obtained %hich allo%ed
&rlando to remarr), then the trial court must dismiss the instant petition to declare
nullit) of marriage on the ground that .elicitas lacks legal personalit) to file the same,
?5. 2,$T +. C$URT $' --E(S
1oreign 'ivorce
.A#-S@ Vicente and 7ebecca %ere married on April :A, 199 in the "hilippines, -he
marriage certificate stated that 7ebecca %as an American citi(en, *ater on, 7ebecca
initiated divorce proceedings against her husband in the 5ominican 7epublic, -he
5ominican #ourt issued a decree ordering the dissolution of their marriage and ;oint
custod) and guardianship over their child, &ver a )ear later, the court issued another
decree settling the coupleGs propert) relations,
*ess than a month from the issuance of said decrees, 7ebecca filed %ith the
+akati 7-# a petition for declaration of nullit) of marriage, She later on %ithdre% said
petition and filed another for declaration of absolute nullit) of marriage on the ground
of VicenteGs ps)chological incapacit), She also sought the dissolution of the con;ugal
partnership of gains %ith application for support pendente lite for her and Ali3 (child$,
Vicente filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of lack of cause of action
and that the petition is barred the prior ;udgment of divorce, 7ebecca insists on her
.ilipino citi(enship, as affirmed b) the 5&1 and that therefore, there is no valid
divorce to speak of,
7-# denied the motion to dismiss and granted 7ebeccaGs application for
support pendente lite,
ISSJ2 8hether petitioner 7ebecca %as a .ilipino citi(en at the time the divorce
;udgment %as rendered in the 5ominican 7epublic on .ebruar) ::, 1996S and
%hether the ;udgment of divorce is valid and, if so, %hat are its conse4uent legal
effectsL N2S, 72/2##A 8AS A0 A+27I#A0 #I-IM20 A- ->2 -I+2 5IV&7#2
8AS 72052725, SAI5 1J5'+20- &. 5IV&7#2 8AS VA*I5,
>2*5 -here can be no serious dispute that 7ebecca, at the time she applied for and
obtained her divorce from Vicente, %as an American citi(en and remains to be one,
absent proof of an effective repudiation of such citi(enship, At the time of the divorce,
7ebecca %as still to be recogni(ed, assuming for argument that she %as in fact later
recogni(ed, as a .ilipino citi(en, but represented herself in public documents as an
American citi(en, At the ver) least, she chose, before, during, and shortl) after her
divorce, her American citi(enship to govern her marital relationship,
/eing an American citi(en, 7ebecca %as bound b) the national la%s of the
Jnited States of America, a countr) %hich allo%s divorce, 1ourth, the propert)
relations of Vicente and 7ebecca %ere properl) ad;udicated through their Agreement
e3ecuted on 5ecember 1B, 1996 after #ivil 5ecree 0o, !6:?96 %as rendered on
.ebruar) ::, 1996, and dul) affirmed b) #ivil 5ecree 0o, BA6?9 issued on +arch B,
199, Veritabl), the foreign divorce secured b) 7ebecca %as valid,
-o be sure, the #ourt has taken stock of the holding in 0arcia v. Recio that a
foreign divorce can be recogni(ed here, provided the divorce decree is proven as a
fact and as valid under the national la% of the alien spouse,

/e this as it ma), the fact
that 7ebecca %as clearl) an American citi(en %hen she secured the divorce and that
divorce is recogni(ed and allo%ed in an) of the States of the Jnion, the presentation
of a cop) of foreign divorce decree dul) authenticated b) the foreign court issuing
said decree is, as here, sufficient,
As the records sho%, 7ebecca, assisted b) counsel, personall) secured the
foreign divorce %hile Vicente %as dul) represented b) his counsel, a certain 5r,
Ale;andro -orrens, in said proceedings, As things stand, the foreign divorce decrees
rendered and issued b) the 5ominican 7epublic court are valid and, conse4uentl),
bind both 7ebecca and Vicente,
.inall), the fact that 7ebecca ma) have been dul) recogni(ed as a .ilipino
citi(en b) force of the 1une C, :AAA affirmation b) Secretar) of 1ustice -u4uero of the
&ctober 6, 199D /ureau &rder of 7ecognition %ill not, standing alone, %ork to nullif)
or invalidate the foreign divorce secured b) 7ebecca as an American citi(en on
.ebruar) ::, 1996, .or as %e stressed at the outset, in determining %hether or not a
divorce secured abroad %ould come %ithin the pale of the countr)'s polic) against
absolute divorce, the reckoning point is the citi(enship of the parties at the time a
valid divorce is obtained,
'iven the validit) and efficac) of divorce secured b) 7ebecca, the same
shall be given a res *udicata effect in this ;urisdiction, As an obvious result of the
divorce decree obtained, the marital vinculum bet%een 7ebecca and Vicente is
considered severedS the) are both freed from the bond of matrimon), In plain
language, Vicente and 7ebecca are no longer husband and %ife to each other,
#onse4uent to the dissolution of the marriage, Vicente could no longer be
sub;ect to a husband's obligation under the #ivil #ode, >e cannot, for instance, be
obliged to live %ith, observe respect and fidelit), and render support to 7ebecca,
In Republic v. ,rbecido III, %e spelled out the t%in elements for the
applicabilit) of the second paragraph of Art, :6, thus@
3 3 3 E8Fe state the t%in elements for the application of "aragraph : of
Article :6 as follo%s@
1, -here is a valid marriage that has been celebrated bet%een a .ilipino citi(en
and a foreignerS and
:, A valid divorce is obtained abroad b) the alien spouse capacitating him or
her to remarr),
-he reckoning point is not the citi(enship of the parties at the time of the
celebration of the marriage, but their citi(enship at the time a valid divorce is
obtained abroad b) the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarr),
-he petitioner lacks a cause of action for declaration of nullit) of marriage, a
suit %hich presupposes the e3istence of a marriage, 8ith the valid foreign divorce
secured b) 7ebecca, there is no more marital tie binding her to Vicente, -here is in
fine no more marriage to be dissolved or nullified,
Remo v. Secretar* of 'orei8n ffairs
Page 21 of
51
'acts. +aria Virginia V, 7emo is a married .ilipino citi(en %hose "hilippine passport
%as e3piring, >er passport stated her name as P+aria Virginia 7emo 7allon(aQ (her
given name, middle name, and husbandGs last name$, 7emo, %hose marriage still
subsists, applied for the rene%al of her passport %ith the 5epartment of .oreign
Affairs (5.A$ %ith a re4uest to revert to her maiden name and surname in the
replacement passport,
-his %as denied b) the 5.A on the ground that the use of oneGs maiden
name is allo%ed in passport applications onl) if the married name has not been used
in previous application, -he Implementing 7ules and 7egulations for "hilippine
"assport Act of 1996 (7A C:!9$ clearl) define the conditions %hen a %oman applicant
ma) revert to her maiden name, that is, onl) in cases of annulment of marriage,
divorce and death of the husband,
7emo contends that Art, !A of the #ivil #ode states that the use of a
husbandGs surname is permissive and thus she should be able to use her maiden
name in her passport, -he &ffice of the "resident, then the #A, ho%ever did not
agree %ith her,
Issue. #an 7emo revert to the use of her maiden name in the replacement passport,
despite the subsistence of her marriageL
"ecision. 0o,
In its decision, the S# stated that a %oman is not prevented from using their
maiden name in their passport, In fact, one ma) opt to use her maiden name in
initiall* obtaining a passport, >o%ever, once a married %oman opts to adopt her
husbandIs surname in her passport, she ma) not revert to the use of her maiden
name, e3cept in the cases enumerated in Section D(d$ of 7A C:!9, -hese instances
are@ (1$ death of husband, (:$ divorce, (!$ annulment, or (B$ nullit) of marriage,
In this case, 7emoGs marriage to her husband subsists and she ma) not
resume her maiden name in the replacement passport, &ther%ise stated, a married
%oman's reversion to the use of her maiden name must be based onl) on the
severance of the marriage,
In ;ustif)ing such strict re4uirements, the S# said that the issuance of
passports is impressed %ith public interest, A passport is an official document of
identit) and nationalit) issued to a person intending to travel or so;ourn in foreign
countries, It is issued b) the "hilippine government to its citi(ens re4uesting other
governments to allo% its holder to pass safel) and freel), and in case of need, to give
him?her aid and protection
@9. CorpuG vs. Sto. Tomas ;GR !o. 9AE<B97 u8ust 997 4D9D=
'acts. #orpu( %as a former .ilipino citi(en %ho ac4uired #anadian citi(enship, >e
married respondent Sto, -omas, a .ilipina, in "asig, Shortl) after the %edding,
#orpu( %ent back to #anada for business, 8hen he returned to the "hilippines he
found out that Sto, -omas %as having an affair (mga babae talagaRtsk, tsk, tsk$,
#orpu( %ent to #anada and got a divorce, >e %anted to marr) another .ilipina so he
registered the divorce decree %ith the "asig #it) #ivil 7egistr) &ffice, 0evertheless,
he %as informed b) a 0S& official that his marriage %ith Sto, -omas still subsists and
that for the divorce decree to be enforceable, it must first be ;udiciall) recogni(ed b)
"hilippine courts, So #orpu( filed a petition for ;udicial recognition of foreign divorce
and?or declaration of marriage, -he 7-# ruled that he %as not the proper part) to
institute the action because he %as an alienS that onl) the .ilipino spouse can avail of
the remed) provided in the :
nd
paragraph of Article :6 of the 0e% #ivil #ode,
Issue. #an the alien spouse avail of the remed) in par, : of Article :6L
Held. 0oH 'iven the rationale and intent of the provision O to avoid the absurd
situation %here the .ilipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse %ho, after
obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the .ilipino spouse O onl) the .ilipino
spouse can invoke the :
nd
paragraph of Article :6, -he said provision besto%s no
rights in favor of aliens,
However, the unavailabilit) of the :
nd
paragraph of Article :6 does not
necessaril) strip #orpu( of legal interest to petition the 7-# for the recognition of his
foreign divorce decree, -he foreign divorce decree itself, after its authenticit) and
conformit) %ith the alienGs national la% have been dul) proven according to the rules
of evidence, serves as a presumptive evidence of right in favor of #orpu(, pursuant to
Section BC, 7ule !9 of the 7ules of #ourt %hich provides for the effect of foreign
;udgments,
In other %ords, although an alien spouse cannot avail of the :
nd
paragraph of
Article :6, he?she can still avail of Section BC, 7ule !9,
+oid and +oidable %arria8es
@4. CR($S v S!"$+(
.A#-S@ -he spouses .eli3 #arlos and .elipa 2lemia died intestate leaving 6 parcels
of land, In order to avoid to inheritance ta3es, .eli3, during his lifetime, transferred to
his son, -eofilo, lots 1, : and ! %ith the condition that -eofilo %ill transfer petitioner
#arlosG (another son of .eli3$ share, "arcel B %as registered in the name of #arlos,
-eofilo died intestate, "arcel D and 6 %as registered in the name of the heirs
of -eofilo including herein respondents .elicidad Sandoval %ho %as his surviving
spouse and son -eofilo #arlos II, "etitioner sues claiming that the marriage bet%een
-eofilo and .elicidad %as null and void for lack of marriage license, .urthermore,
petitioner contends that -eofilo #arlos II %as neither an adoptive or natural son of
-eofilo #arlos,
7espondent submitted an affidavit of the ;ustice of peace %ho solemni(ed
marriage and the certificate of live birth of -eofilo #arlos II %herein it %as stated that
-eofilo #arlos and .elicidad Sandoval are the parents, /) virtue of these documents,
respondents move for summar) ;udgment, "etitioner also moved for summar)
;udgment and presented as evidence the certificate of the civil registrar attesting to
the fact there is no birth certificate of -eofilo II on record,
Page 22 of
51
ISSJ2@ 8hether or not a ;udgment on nullit) of marriage ma) be handed do%n in a
summar) ;udgment and %ithout conducting a full dress trial
8hether or not a person %ho is not a spouse ma) bring an action for nullit)
of marriage
>2*5@
1, According to A+ A:=11=1A=S# also kno%n as the 7ule on 5eclaration of
Absolute 0ullit) of Void +arriages and Annulment of Voidable +arriages,
summar) ;udgments and ;udgments on pleadings are not applicable in nullit)
or annulment cases, -he reason behind this is that %ithout a full dress trial,
the state is deprived the opportunit) to appear before the courts, -he role of
the prosecutor does not stop b) the simple declaration that there %as no
collusion, -he prosecutor must be given opportunit) to appear before the
trial in order to make sure that no evidence is fabricated,
:, .or marriages solemni(ed under the &ld #ivil #ode, testate and intestate
heirs ma) sue for nullit) or annulment, >o%ever, A+ A:=11=1A=S# no% vests
this right e3clusivel) on the spouses on the theor) that since the spouses
alone are the builders of marital life, the) alone have the right put an end to
it, >o%ever, the heirs are not entirel) deprived of their right to sue for nullit)
or annulment, -he) can do so not on a proceeding for the nullit) or marriage
but on settlement of estate, In the case at bar, since the marriage bet%een
-eofilo and .elicidad %as celebrated in 196:, the old civil code applies but
since the old civil code does not specificall) provide for %ho can sue, then
%e appl) the Preal part) in interestQ rule, In this case, petitioner is a real part)
in interest because as a collateral relative of -eofilo, he stands to succeed
intestate %hen -eofilo II is declared not to be either a legitimate, illegitimate
and adoptive son of -eofilo, 7emember that the presence of legitimate,
illegitimate ascendants?descedants preclude the succession of collaterals,
@?. blaGa v Republic
%an a person bring an action for the declaration of the absolute nullity of the marriage
of his deceased brother solemni!ed under the regime of the old %ivil %ode;
.acts@ -he petitioner alleged that the marriage bet%een his brother #resenciano and
*eonila had been celebrated is void because there %as no a marriage license at the
time the marriage %as celebrated (the license %as given a %eek later$, -he marriage
%as in 19B9, >e insisted that his being the surviving brother of #resenciano %ho had
died %ithout an) issue entitled him to one=half of the real properties ac4uired b)
#resenciano before his death, thereb) making him a real part) in interest, >e also
claims that he can impugn the validit) of the marriage because it %as void, even if
after the death of his brother,
Issue@ 5oes he have standingL
>eld@ Nes,
-he S# A+ states that onl) the husband or the %ife can bring an action for the nullit)
of the marriage, >o%ever, in #arlos v Sandoval, the #ourt said that this %onGt appl)
to@
1, those actions commenced before +arch 1D, :AA! (%hen the rules came out$
:, those filed for marriages celebrated before +arch 1D, :AA!
-he marriage bet%een #resence and *eonila %as under the #ivil #ode, It %as %a)
back in 19B9, -he A+ has no application to them,
-he old #ivil #ode does not specif) %ho can bring actions, >o%ever, this does not
mean that an)one can ;ust bring actions to declare absolute nullit), -he plaintiff must
still be the part) %ho stands to be benefited b) the suit, or the part) entitled to the
avails of the suit, for it is basic in procedural la% that ever) action must be prosecuted
and defended in the name of the real part) in interest,-hus, onl) the part) %ho can
demonstrate a <proper interest< can file the action, Interest %ithin the meaning of the
rule means material interest, or an interest in issue to be affected b) the decree or
;udgment of the case, as distinguished from mere curiosit) about the 4uestion
involved or a mere incidental interest,
>ere, the petitioner alleged himself to be the late #resencianoGs brother and surviving
heir, Assuming that the petitioner %as as he claimed himself to be, then he has a
material interest in the estate of #resenciano that %ill be adversel) affected b) an)
;udgment in the suit, Indeed, a brother like the petitioner, albeit not a compulsor) heir
under the la%s of succession, has the right to succeed to the estate of a deceased
brother under the conditions stated in the 7ules of Succession,
>o%ever, petitioner must implead *eonila since there are some cases under the #ivil
#ode %herein a marriage license %as not needed for a valid marriage, She must be
given a chance to sa) her side,
@@. 2olos v. 2olos7 $ct. 4D7 4D9D
'acts. 5anilo and #)nthia /olos %ere married on .eb, 1B, 19CA, &n 1ul) :AA!,
#)nthia filed a petition for the declaration of nullit) of their marriage under Art, !6 of
the .# (ps)chological incapacit)$, 7-# granted the petition, 5anilo filed a 0otice of
Appeal, -he 7-# denied due course to the appeal for 5aniloGs failure to file the
re4uired motion for reconsideration or ne% trial, in violation of Sec, :A of the 7ule on
5eclaration of Absolute 0ullit) of Void +arriage and Annulment of Voidable +arriages
(-he 7J*2$ (A,+, 0o, A:=11=1A=S#$, 5anilo then filed for certiorari (7ule 6D$ in the
#A seeking to annul the orders of the 7-#, #A granted the petition and reversed the
7-#Gs decision, #A stated that the re4uirement of a motion for reconsideration as a
prere4uisite to appeal under A,+, A:=11=1A=S# does not appl) in this case as the
/olos marriage %as solemni(ed before the .amil) #ode took effect, #)nthia then filed
a petition (7ule BD$ in the S#,
Page 23 of
51
Issue. 8hether or not -he 7J*2 is applicable to the caseL
Held. 0&, -he #ourt ruled in Enrico v. Heirs of +ps. Medinaceli that the coverage of
the 7J*2 e3tends onl) to those marriages entered into during the effectivit) of the .#
%hich took effect on Aug, !, 19CC, -he /olos marriage took place on .eb, 19CA, -he
7J*2, %hich %as promulgated on +arch 1D, :AA!, is e3plicit in its scope, Sec, 1 of
the same reads@
Sec, 1, Scope O -his 7ule govern petitions for declaration of absolute nullit)
of void marriages and annulment of voidable marriages under the 1amily
%ode of the "hilippines,
-he 7ules of #ourt shall appl) suppletoril),
-he categorical language of the 7J*2 leaves no room for doubt, -he coverage
e3tends onl) those marriages entered into during the effectivit) of the .#, -he 7J*2
sets a demarcation line bet%een marriages covered b) the .# and those solemni(ed
under the #ivil #ode,
#A decision A..I7+25,
"I!$ +. "I!$
"ifference of +oid and +oidable. !ecessit* of Court "eclaration
@E. Wei8el vs. SempioC"i*
*ilia &livia 8iegel got married to Iarl >ein( 8iegel on 1ul) 19C at the >ol) #atholic
Apostolic #hristian #hurch in +akati, Iarl, upon learning that *ilia had a subsisting
marriage, filed for a declaration of nullit) of their marriage, *ilia contracted her first
marriage %ith 2duardo +a3ion on 1une :D, 19:, She claims that the first marriage is
not valid because the) %ere forced to enter the union and +a3ion %as married to
someone else at that time,
ISSJ2@ 8&0 *iliaGs first marriage is voidL
>2*5@ 0o, ItGs voidable, "etition dismissed,
7A-I&@ -here is no need for petitioner to prove that her first marriage %as vitiated b)
force committed against both parties because assuming this to be so, the marriage
%ill not be void but merel) viodable (Art, CD, #ivil #ode$, and therefore valid until
annulled, Since no annulment has )et been made, it is clear that %hen she married
respondent she %as still validl) married to her first husband, conse4uentl), her
marriage to respondent is V&I5 (Art, CA, #ivil #ode$,
-here is like%ise no need of introducing evidence about the e3isting prior marriage of
her first husband at the time the) married each other, for then such a marriage though
void still needs according to this #ourt a ;udicial declaration of such fact and for all
legal intents and purposes she %ould still be regarded as a married %oman at the
time she contracted her marriage %ith respondent Iarl >ein( 8iegelS accordingl), the
marriage of petitioner and respondent %ould be regarded V&I5 under the la%,
(olita ". Enrico v. Heirs of Eulo8io 2. %edinaceli C September 4A7 4DDB
.acts@ "etitioner, *olita 5, 2nrico, is the second %ife of 2ulogio +edinacili, -he) %ere
married on August :B, :AAB, -his marriage %as celebrated B months after 2ulogioGs
first %ife died on +a) :AAB,
&n .ebruar), :AAD, or si3 months after his second marriage, 2ulogio died,
-he respondents are 2ulogioGs heirs and seek a declaration of nullit) of the
marriage of "etitioner *olita and 2ulogio on the ground that the marriage %as
celebrated %ithout a valid marriage license, And that D=)ear cohabitation e3ception
could not appl) since 2ulogio %as a bachelor for onl) B months,
"etitioner ans%ered the complaint and alleged that the) have been living as
husband and %ife for :1 )ears as in fact the) had : children, .urther, petitioner
contended that it is onl) the contracting parties %hile living can file an action for
declaration of nullit) of their marriage,
7-# dismissed the complaint but on reconsideration reinstated the case,
"etitioner 2nrico directl) filed for 7ule 6D in the S#,
Issue@ 5o the heirs have standing to file the action for the declaration of nullit)L 0&,
7uling@ S# grants the petition and dismisses the petition for declaration of nullit) filed
b) the heirs,
.irst, Void marriages solemni(ed under the .amil) #ode are governed b)
the A,+, A:=11=1A of the S#, that is, marriages entered into on and after August !,
19CC, -he A,+, of the S# provides that Pa petition for declaration of absolute nullit) of
void marriage ma) be filed solel) b) the husband or the %ife,Q It is clear, -hus, the
heirs have no standing, #ase 5ismissedH
Second, as to the 0inal v, /ada)og ruling that allo%s heirs to file a petition
for declaration of nullit), this applies onl) to those marriages under the #ivil #ode,
8hat is the remed) no% of the heirsL 7emember that a void marriage can
be collaterall) attacked, hence since the) onl) seek to protect their propert) rights
the) can al%a)s impugn the legitimac) of the marriage of petitioner and their father in
the proceeding for the settlement of the estate of their deceased faither,
+oid %arria8es. Grounds 3 (ac: of essentialFformal re1uirements
RE-U2(IC + C
'CTS 7espondent Angelina +, #astro and 2d%in ., #ardenas %ere married in a
civil ceremon) performed b) a #it) #ourt 1udge of "asa) #it) and %as celebrated
%ithout the kno%ledge of #astro's parents, #ardenas personall) attended the
procuring of the documents re4uired for the celebration of the marriage, including the
procurement of the marriage license, -heir marriage contract states that a marriage
license %as issued in the name of the contracting parties in "asig, +etro +anila,
Page 24 of
51
-he couple did not immediatel) live together as husband and %ife, -he) decided to
live together onl) %hen #astro discovered she %as pregnant, -heir cohabitation
lasted onl) for four months, -hereafter, the couple parted %a)s, -he bab) %as
adopted b) #astroGs brother, %ith the consent of #ardenas,
5esiring to follo% her daughter in the J,S, #astro %anted to put in order her marital
status before leaving, She then discovered that there %as no marriage license issued
to #ardenas prior to the celebration of their marriage as certified b) the #ivil 7egistrar
of "asig, +etro +anila,
7espondent then filed a petition %ith the 7-# of Uue(on #it) seeking for the ;udicial
declaration of nullit) of her marriage claiming that no marriage license %as ever
issued to them prior to the solemni(ation of their marriage,
-he trial court denied her petition holding that the certification as inade4uate to
establish the alleged non=issuance of a marriage license prior to the celebration of the
marriage bet%een the parties, It ruled that the inabilit) of the certif)ing official to
locate the marriage license is not conclusive to sho% that there %as no marriage
license issued, &n appeal, the decision of the trial court %as reversed,
ISSUE Is the marriage validL
HE(" 0&,
-he sub;ect marriage is one of those commonl) kno%n as a Psecret marriageQ,
ordinaril) used to refer to a civil marriage celebrated %ithout the kno%ledge of the
relatives and?or friends of the contracting parties, At the time the marriage %as
solemni(ed on 1une :B, 19A, the la% governing marital relations %as the 0e% #ivil
#ode %hich provides that no marriage shall be solemni(ed %ithout a marriage license
first issued b) a local civil registrar, /eing one of the essential re4uisites of a valid
marriage, absence of a license %ould render the marriage void ab initio,
-he certification of due search and inabilit) to find issued b) the civil registrar of "asig
en;o)s probative value, he being the officer charged under the la% to keep a record of
all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license, Jnaccompanied b) an)
circumstance of suspicion, a certificate of due search and inabilit) to find sufficientl)
proved that his office did not issue a marriage license to the contracting parties, -here
%as absolutel) no evidence on record to sho% that there %as collusion bet%een
private respondent and her husband #ardenas,
"eclaration of -resumptive "eath
Republic vs. !olasco ;44D SCR 4D=
'CTS. 'regorio 0olasco, a seaman, met 1anet "arker, a /ritish, in a bar in
*iverpool, 2ngland, -hereafter, she lived together %ith 0olasco on his ship for 6
months, 8hen 0olascoGs contract e3pired, the) returned to his hometo%n in Anti4ue,
In 19C:, the couple got married, >is contract %as then rene%ed, thus, he had to leave
his %ife, In 19C!, %hile %orking overseas, 0olasco got a letter from his mother
informing him that 1anet gave birth to their son and that she had left Anti4ue, >e
asked permission from his emplo)er to return home so that he can look for 1anet, In
19CC, 0olasco filed a petition to declare 1anet presumptivel) dead, >e testified that
he e3erted ever) effort to look for her, but it proved to be fruitless, >e even sent
letters to the address of the bar %here the couple first met, but the) %ere all returned
to him, >e also in4uired from their friends, but the) had no ne%s about 1anet, >e also
alleged that he had no kno%ledge of 1anetGs famil) background and that even after
the) %ere married, she still refused to disclose such information, 0olasco also
testified that he did not report the incident to "hilippine authorities, -he 7-# granted
the petition, -he #A affirmed,
ISSUE. WF! !olasco has a wellCfounded belief that his wife is alread* dead.
HE("FRTI$. !$. Thus7 the declaration of /anetIs presumptive death is
RE+ERSE"7 !U((I'IE" and SET SI"E.
Art, B1 of the .amil) #ode provides for B re4uisites for the declaration of
presumptive death, namel)@
4. 3hat the absent spouse has been missing for four consecutive years, or two
consecutive years if the disappearance occurred where there is danger of
death under the circumstances laid down in )rticle 754, %ivil %ode<
=. 3hat the present spouse wishes to remarry<
7. 3hat the present spouse has a well>founded belief that the absentee is
dead< and
8. 3hat the present spouse files a summary proceeding for the declaration of
presumptive death of the absentee.
-he S#, in reversing the #A, held that 0olasco did not compl) %ith the third
re4uirement as he failed to conduct a search for his missing %ife %ith such diligence
as to give rise to a P%ell=founded beliefQ that she is dead, -he investigation allegedl)
conducted b) 0olasco in his attempt to ascertain the %hereabouts of 1anet is too
sketch) to form the basis of a reasonable or %ell=founded belief that she %as alread)
dead, .or instance, %hen he arrived in Anti4ue, instead of seeking the help of local
authorities or of the /ritish 2mbass), he secured another seaman's contract and %ent
to *ondon, >is testimon) sho%ed that he confused *ondon for *iverpool and this
casts doubt on his supposed efforts to locate his %ife in 2ngland, -here is no analog)
bet%een +anila and its neighboring cities, on one hand, and *ondon and *iverpool,
on the other, %hich, as pointed out b) the Solicitor='eneral, are around !DA km apart,
8e do not consider that %alking into a ma;or cit) like *iverpool or *ondon %ith a
simple hope of someho% bumping into one particular person there 9 %hich is in
effect %hat 0olasco sa)s he did 9 can be regarded as a reasonabl) diligent search,
-he #ourt also vie%s 0olasco's claim that 1anet declined to give an) information as
to her personal background even after marr)ing 0olasco as too convenient an e3cuse
to ;ustif) his failure to locate her, 0either can this #ourt give much credence to
respondent's bare assertion that he had in4uired from their friends of her
%hereabouts, considering that respondent did not identif) those friends in his
testimon),
-s*cholo8ical Incapacit* of -arties
Page 25 of
51
RE-U2(IC $' THE -HI(I--I!ES v. ;C$URT $' --E(S !"= %$(I!
4EA SCR 95A7 G.R. !o. 9DABE?7 'ebruar* 9?7 955B.
'CTS. &n August 16, 199A, 7oridel +olina filed a verified petition for the declaration
of nullit) of her marriage to 7e)naldo on the ground of the latterGs ps)chological
incapacit), She alleges that a )ear after their marriage, 7e)naldo presented signs of
immaturit) and irresponsibilit) as both husband and father as 7e)naldo@ preferred to
spend time %ith, and spend mone) on, his friendsS %as dependent on his parents for
aid, andS %as al%a)s dishonest %ith her about the famil)Gs finances,
7e)naldo had been terminated from emplo)ment in .ebruar) 19C6 and 7orida had
been the sole bread%inner since, In +arch 19C, she resigned from her ;ob and %ent
to sta) %ith her parents, Shortl) thereafter, 7e)naldo left her and their son, Andre,
and had since abandoned their famil),
-he trial court declared the marriage void and the #ourt of Appeals affirmed,
ISSUE. 8?0 7e)naldo is ps)chologicall) incapacitated O 0&, -he marriage subsists,
RTI$. It has not been established that the defect spoken of is an incapacit), It is
more of a difficult), if not an outright refusal or neglect in the performance of marital
obligations, 7oridelGs evidence simpl) sho%ed that she and 7e)naldo could not get
along,
+ere sho%ing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities are not
tantamount to ps)chological incapacit), 7ather than merel) failing to meet marital
obligations, it is necessar) to sho% that said person is incapable of doing so because
of a ps)chological illness,
"s)chological incapacit) is the mental incapacit) to the most serious of ps)chological
disorders demonstrative of an utter insensitivit) or inabilit) to give meaning and
significance to the marriage, "s)chological incapacit) is characteri(ed b)@ gravit),
;udicial antecedence, and incurabilit),
(Art, !6 'uidelines laid do%n b) the #ourt$
1, /urden of proof to sho% the nullit) of the marriage is on the plaintiff, 5oubt is
resolved in favor of the continuation of the marriage,
:, -he root of ps)chological incapacit) must be@ a,$ clinicall) identifiedS b,$
alleged in the complaintS c,$ proven b) e3pertsS and d,$ clearl) e3plained in
the decision, -he evidence should satisf) the court that either, or both, of the
parties is mentall) ill to the e3tent that s?he could not have kno%n the
obligation s?he %as assumingS or kno%ing the obligations, could not validl)
assume them,
!, Incapacit) must e3ist at the time the marriage %as celebrated, "erception of
a manifestation is unnecessar) at the time of the celebration, but the illness
must be proven to e3ist at such moment,
B, Incapacit) must be sho%n to be incurable or permanent,
D, Illness must be grave enough to bring about the disabilit) of the part) to
assume the essential obligations of marriage,
6, -he essential obligations are those covered b) Art, 6C to 1 of the .amil)
#ode, bet%een spouses, and Art, ::A, ::1 and ::D as regards parents and
their children,
, Interpretation b) the 0ational Appellate +atrimonial -ribunal of the #atholic
#hurch in the "hilippines, %hile not decisive, should be given great respect
b) the courts,
C, -rial court must order the prosecuting attorne) or fiscal, and the Solicitor
'eneral to appear as counsel for the State, 0o decision shall be handed
do%n %ithout the Solicitor 'eneralGs issuance of a certificate, stating his
reasons for his agreement or opposition to the petition, Such certificate %ill
be 4uoted in the decision, -he certificate must be submitted %ithin 1D da)s
from the date the case is submitted for resolution,
!oel 2acca* v. %aribel 2acca*
Topic under -s*cholo8ical Incapacit*F "octrine. Unsatisfactor* marria8e is not
a null and void marria8e per se7 must clearl* establish true incapabilit* to
perform basic marital covenants.
.acts@ 0oel and +aribel %ere college s%eethearts, -hen, sometime in 0ovember
199C, +aribel informed 0oel that she %as pregnant %ith his child, -he) immediatel)
%ed da)s after before 7-# U#, After the marriage ceremon), both agreed to live %ith
0oel's famil) in their house, 5uring all the time she lived %ith 0oel's famil), +aribel
remained aloof and did not go out of her %a) to endear herself to them, She %ould
;ust come and go from the house as she pleased, She never contributed to the
famil)'s coffer leaving 0oel to shoulder all e3penses for their support, she refused to
have an) se3ual contact %ith 0oel, Surprisingl), despite +aribel's claim of being
pregnant, 0oel never observed an) s)mptoms of pregnanc) in herH
-rouble ensued and so 0oel filed for declaration of nullit) of the marriage, to %hich
the #ourt granted, stating that +aribel failed to perform the essential marital
obligations of marriage, and such failure %as due to a personalit) disorder called
0arcissistic "ersonalit) 5isorder characteri(ed b) ;uridical antecedence, gravit) and
incurabilit) as determined b) a clinical ps)chologist, #A reversed, hence this petition,
Issue@ +arriage null and void under Article !6L "s)chological incapacit)L (in short,
%ill the personalit) disorder and no se3)=time merit the nullit) of marriageL$
>eld@ "etition deniedH -otalit) of evidence b) 0oel fails to prove ",I,
7atio@ .irst, +antos v. %ourt of )ppeals

that the phrase <ps)chological incapacit)< is
not meant to comprehend all possible cases of ps)choses, -he intendment of the la%
has been to confine it to the most serious of cases of personalit) disorders clearl)
demonstrative of an utter insensitivit) or inabilit) to give meaning and significance to
the marriage,
Second, Republic v. %) laid do%n the guidelines to determine ",I,
a$ /urden of "roof on petitioner? 7esolved in favor of validit) and continuit) of
marriage
Page 26 of
51
b$ +ust be alleged in complaint that the person could not have kno%n the obligations
he %as assuming, or kno%ing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof,
c$ +edicall) proven to be permanentl) incurable in terms of marital obligations
(I0#J7A/I*I-N$
d$ 'rave enough illness to not assume the essential obligations of marriage
('7AVI-N$
e$ the obligations are those e3pressl) enumerated b) la%? Interpretation of 0A+-
#hurch should be given great respect? -# must order fiscal and Sol='en to appear as
counsel for the State
*astl), he failed to prove the root cause of the alleged ps)chological incapacit) and
establish the re4uirements of gravit), ;uridical antecedence, and incurabilit), As
correctl) observed b) the #A, the report of the ps)chologist, %ho concluded that
+aribel %as suffering from 0arcissistic "ersonalit) 5isorder traceable to her
e3periences during childhood, did not establish ho% the personalit) disorder
incapacitated +aribel from validl) assuming the essential obligations of the marriage,
Enri1ue 8raviador v. Erlinda mparoC8raviador
G.R. !o. 9BDB457 "ecember A7 4D9D
.acts@
"2-I-I&027 (2nri4ue$ met 72S"&0520- (2rlinda$ in 191 at a
beerhouse %here 72S"&0520- %orked, "2-I-I&027, at that time, %as a
:B=)ear old securit) guard of the /ureau of #ustoms, %hile 72S"&0520-
%as a 1=)ear old %aitress, "2-I-I&027 and 72S"&0520- eventuall)
became s%eethearts, -he) soon entered into a common=la% relationship,
In 19!, "2-I-I&027 and 72S"&0520- married in a ceremon) officiated
b) 7everend 7e)es at a church in -ondo, "2-I-I&027Gs famil) %as
apprehensive because of the nature of 72S"&0520-Gs %ork and because
she comes from a broken famil),
&ut of their union, the) begot four children@ 2ris4ue, 2mmanuel, 2vel)n, and
2)mare),
In :AA1, "2-I-I&027 filed %ith 7-# a petition for the declaration of nullit)
of his marriage under Article !6 of the .amil) #ode, "2-I-I&027 alleged
that 72S"&0520- %as ps)chologicall) incapacitated to e3ercise the
essential obligations of marriage as she %as carefree and irresponsible, and
refused to do household chores like cleaning and cookingS sta)ed a%a) from
their house for long periods of timeS had an affair %ith a lesbianS didnGt take
care of their sick childS consulted a %itch doctor in order to bring him bad
fateS and refused to use the famil) name Agraviador in her activities,
"2-I-I&027 further claimed 72S"&0520- refused to have se) with
him since 955? because she became ver* close to a male tenant in
their house (2nri4ue also discovered their love notes to each other, and
caught them inside his room several times$,
72S"&0520- moved to dismiss petition on the ground that the root cause
of her ps)chological incapacit) %as not medicall) identified, 7-# denied
motion,
In her ans%er, 72S"&0520- denied engaging in e3tramarital affairs and
maintained that "2-I-I&027 refused to have se3 %ith her, "2-I-I&027
allegedl) %anted to have their marriage annulled because he %anted to
marr) their former household helper, 'ilda #amarin, *astl), "2-I-I&027
maintained she took care of her sick son (%ho eventuall) died$,
7-# ordered cit) prosecutor and Solgen to investigate if collusion e3isted
bet%een the parties,
Aside from his testimon), "2-I-I&027 presented #ertificate of -rue #op)
of their +arriage #ontract and the ps)chiatric evaluation report of 5r, 1uan
#irilo *, "atac, 5r, "atac@ (1$ "2-I-I&027 ps)chologicall) capable to fulfill
the essential obligations of marriageS (:$ 72S"&0520- failed to fulfill the
essential obligations of marriage, manifesting infle3ible maladaptive behavior
even at the time before their marriageS and (!$ 72S"&0520- suffers from a
"ersonalit) 5isorder,
Issue@ 8hether there is basis to nullif) the petitionerGs marriage to the respondent on
the ground of ps)chological incapacit) to compl) %ith the essential marital
obligationsL
>eld@ 0o, "etition denied,

1, -&-A*I-N &. 2VI520#2 presented failed to establish 72S"&0520-Gs
ps)chological incapacit), "s)chological incapacit) under Art, !6 is not
vitiation of consentS it does not affect the consent to the marriage,
:, Summar) of 1urisprudential 'uidelines@
a, +antos v. %ourt of )ppeals@ ps)chological incapacit) is a mental
incapacit) (not ph)sical capacit)$ that causes a part) to be trul)
incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantl) must be
assumed and discharged b) the parties to the marriage, -hus, it is must
be confined to the most serious cases of personalit) disorders clearl)
demonstrative of an utter insensitivit) or inabilit) to give meaning and
significance to the marriage, It is characteri(ed b)@
i, 'ravit)S
ii, 1uridical antecedenceS and
iii, Incurabilit),
b, Molina 'octrine ?Republic v. %ourt of )ppeals@@ 'uidelines in
interpreting Art, !6 of the .amil) #ode@
i, /urden of "roof belongs to the "laintiff, 5oubt should be resolved
in favor of e3istence and continuation of the marriage and against
its dissolution and nullit),
Page 27 of
51
ii, 7oot cause of the ps)chological incapacit) must be (a$ medicall) or
clinicall) identifiedS (b$ alleged in the complaintS (c$ sufficientl)
proven b) the e3pertsS and (d$ clearl) e3plained in the decision,
iii, Incapacit) must be proven to be e3isting at the time of the
celebration of the marriage (e3changed I doGs$,
iv, Incapacit) must be sho%n to be medicall) or clinicall) permanent or
incurable, Incurabilit) ma) be absolute or relative onl) in regard to
the other spouse, not necessaril) absolute against ever)one of the
same se3,
v, Illness must be grave enough to bring about the disabilit) of the
part) to assume the essential obligations of the marriageS it should
not be merel) a refusal, neglect, difficult), or ill %ill, 2rgo, the
natal?supervening disabilit) effectivel) incapacitates the person
from reall) accepting and thereb) compl)ing %ith the obligations
essential to the marriage,
vi, 2ssential marital obligations Y Arts, 6C up to 1 of the .amil) #ode
as regards the husband and %ife X Arts, ::A, ::1, and ::D of the
.amil) #ode %? respect to the children
vii, Interpretations given b) the 0ational Appellate +atrimonial -ribunal
of the #atholic #hurch of the "hilippines, %hile not controlling,
should be given great respect b) the courts,
viii, -he trial court must order the prosecuting attorne) or fiscal and the
Sol'en to appear as counsel for the state, 0o decision shall be
handed do%n unless the Sol'en issues a certification stating his
reasons for agreeing or opposing the petition, Sol'en shall
discharge the e4uivalent function of defensor vinculi contemplated
under #anon 1A9D,
c, Marcos v. Marcos@ clarified that there is no re4uirement that
defendant?respondent should be personall) e3amined b) a ph)sician or
ps)chologist as a condition sine Aua non for the declaration of marriage
based on ps)chologicall) incapacit), Introduction of e3pert opinion in a
petition under Art, !6 of the .amil) #ode no longer necessar) if the
totalit) of evidence sho%s ps)chological incapacit) e3ists and its gravit),
;uridical antecedence, and incurabilit) can be dul) established,
d, "go 3e v, Bu>3e@ rigid rules are in appropriate in resolving all cases of
ps)chological incapacit) ("I$ such as those set out it Molina, -his case
put into 4uestion the applicabilit) of time=tested guidelines set forth in
+anila,
e, 3ing v. &ele!>3ing X +ua!o v. +ua!o@ clarified that "go 3e did not
abandon Molina, it simpl) suggested the rela3ation of its stringent
re4uirements, "go 3e merel) stands for a more fle3ible approach in
considering petitions for declaration of nullit) of marriages based on "I,
!, Summar) of 2vidence
a, "etitionerGs testimon)@ "etitionerGs theor) that the respondentGs
ps)chological incapacit) is premised on her refusal or un%illingness to
perform certain marital obligations, and a number of unpleasant
personalit) traits such as immaturit), irresponsibilit), and unfaithfulness,
-hese acts, in our vie%, do not rise to the level of ps)chological
incapacit) that the la% re4uires, and should be distinguished from the
Pdifficult),Q if not outright PrefusalQ or Pneglect,Q in the performance of
some marital obligations that characteri(e some marriages,
"etitionerGs testimon) failed to establish that the respondentGs condition
is a manifestation of a disordered personalit) rooted on some
incapacitating or debilitating ps)chological condition that makes her
completel) unable to discharge the essential marital obligations, If at all,
the petitioner merel) sho%ed that the respondent had some personalit)
defects that sho%ed their manifestation during the marriageS his
testimon) sorel) lacked details necessar) to establish that the
respondentGs defects e3isted at the inception of the marriage, In
addition, the petitioner failed to discuss the 8ravit* of the respondentGs
conditionS neither did he mention that the respondentGs malad)
%as incurable, or if it %ere other%ise, the cure %ould be be)ond the
respondentGs means to undertake, -he petitionerGs declarations that the
respondent Pdoes not accept her fault,Q Pdoes not %ant to change,Q and
Prefused to reformQ are insufficient to establish a ps)chological or mental
defect that is serious, grave, or incurable as contemplated b) Article !6
of the .amil) #ode,
b, "s)chiatric 2valuation 7eport@ fell short in proving that the respondent
%as ps)chologicall) incapacitated to perform the essential marital
duties, 5r, "atac did not personall) evaluate and e3amine the
respondentS he, in fact, recommended at the end of his 7eport for the
respondent to Pundergo the same e3amination Ethat the petitionerF
under%ent,Q

8e do not suggest that a personal e3amination of the part) alleged to
be ps)chologicall) incapacitated is mandator), If a ps)chological
disorder can be proven b) independent means, no reason e3ists %h)
such independent proof cannot be admitted and given credit, 0o such
independent evidence appears on record, ho%ever, to have been
gathered in this case,

In his 7eport, 5r, "atac attempted to establish the >uridical
antecedence of the respondentGs condition b) stating that the
respondent manifested Pinfle3ible maladaptive behaviorQ before
marriage, pointing out ho% the respondent behaved before the marriage
O the respondent defied her parents and lived aloneS rented a room for
herselfS and allo%ed the petitioner to sleep %ith her, -hese perceived
behavioral fla%s, to our mind, are insufficient to establish that the
Page 28 of
51
incapacit) %as rooted in the histor) of the respondent antedating the
marriage, -his is an area %here independent evidence, such as
information from a person intimatel) related to the respondent, could
prove useful, In the absence of such evidence, it is not surprising %h)
the "s)chiatric 7eport 2valuation failed to e3plain ho% and %h) the
respondentGs so=called infle3ible maladaptive behavior %as alread)
present at the time of the marriage,

5r, "atacGs "s)chiatric 2valuation 7eport like%ise failed to prove
the 8ravit* or seriousness of the respondentGs condition, >e simpl)
made an enumeration of the respondentGs purported behavioral defects
(as related to him b) third persons$, and on this basis characteri(ed the
respondent to be suffering from mi3ed personalit) disorder, At best, the
personalit) fla%s mentioned in the 7eport, even if true, could onl)
amount to insensitivit), se3ual infidelit), emotional immaturit), and
irresponsibilit), %hich do not b) themselves %arrant a finding of
ps)chological incapacit) under Article !6 of the .amil) #ode,

-he "s)chiatric 2valuation 7eport like%ise failed to ade4uatel) e3plain
ho% 5r, "atac came to the conclusion that the respondentGs personalit)
disorder had Pno definite treatment,Q It did not discuss the concept of
mi3ed personalit) disorder and failed to sho% ho% and to %hat e3tent
the respondent e3hibited this disorder in order to create a necessar)
inference that the respondentGs condition had no definite treatment or is
incurable, 8larin8 deficienc*7 to our mind7 is the -s*chiatric
Evaluation ReportIs failure to support its findin8s and conclusions
with an* factual basis,
-he standards used in #ourt to assess the sufficienc) of ps)chological
reports ma) be deemed ver) strict, but these are proper, in vie% of the
principle that an) doubt should be resolved in favor of the validit) of the
marriage,
$CH$S v. (!$ G.R. !$. 9EB@<57 /!UR, 4E7 4D99
+oldier love story
.A#-S@ It appears that 1ose met /ona in August 19! %hen he %as a )oung
lieutenant in the A." %hile the latter %as a seventeen=)ear=old first )ear college drop=
out, -he) had a %hirl%ind romance that culminated into se3ual intimac) and eventual
marriage on : &ctober 19! before the >onorable 1udge #esar S, "rincipe in
/asilan, -he couple did not ac4uire an) propert), 0either did the) incur an) debts,
-heir union produced no offspring, In 196, ho%ever, the) found an abandoned and
neglected one=)ear=old bab) girl %hom the) later registered as their daughter, naming
her 7amona #eleste Alano&chosa,
5uring their marriage, 1ose %as often assigned to various parts of the "hilippine
archipelago as an officer in the A.", /ona did not cohabit %ith him in his posts,
preferring to sta) in her hometo%n of /asilan, 0either did /ona visit him in his areas
of assignment, e3cept in one (1$ occasion %hen /ona sta)ed %ith him for four (B$
da)s,
Sometime in 19CD, 1ose %as appointed as the /attalion #ommander of the Securit)
2scort 'roup, >e and /ona, along %ith 7amona, %ere given living 4uarters at .ort
/onifacio, +akati #it) %here the) resided %ith their militar) aides,
In 19C, 1ose %as charged %ith rebellion for his alleged participation in the failed
coup dGetat, >e %as incarcerated in #amp #rame,
It appears that /ona %as an unfaithful spouse, 2ven at the onset of their marriage
%hen 1ose %as assigned in various parts of the countr), she had illicit relations %ith
other men, /ona apparentl) did not change her %a)s %hen the) lived together at .ort
/onifacioS she entertained male visitors in her bedroom %henever 1ose %as out of
their living 4uarters, &n one occasion, /ona %as caught b) 5emetrio /a;et ) *ita, a
securit) aide, having se3 %ith 1oseGs driver, #orporal 'agarin, 7umors of /onaGs
se3ual infidelit) circulated in the militar) communit), 8hen 1ose could no longer bear
these rumors, he got a militar) pass from his ;ail %arden and confronted /ona,
5uring their confrontation, /ona admitted her relationship %ith #orporal 'agarin %ho
also made a similar admission to 1ose, 1ose drove /ona a%a) from their living
4uarters, /ona left %ith 7amona and %ent to /asilan,
In 199B, 7amona left /ona and came to live %ith 1ose, It is 1ose %ho is currentl)
supporting the needs of 7amona,
1ose filed a "etition for 5eclaration of 0ullit) of +arriage, docketed as #ivil #ase 0o,
9=:9A! %ith the 7-# of +akati #it), /ranch 1BA, seeking to nullif) his marriage to
/ona on the ground of the latterGs ps)chological incapacit) to fulfill the essential
obligations of marriage, &ne of the evidence presented is the testimon) of
ps)chiatrist, %ho reached the conclusion that respondent (/ona$%as suffering from
histrionic personalit) disorder, -he 7-# granted the nullit) of marriage, but the #A
reversed the decision of 7-#, >ence, this appeal,
ISSJ2@ 8hether or not /ona should be deemed ps)chologicall) incapacitated to
compl) %ith the essential marital obligations,
>2*5@ 0&,
After a careful perusal of the evidence presented in this case, that /ona had been, on
several occasions %ith several other men, se3uall) dislo)al to her spouse, 1ose,
*ike%ise, /ona had indeed abandoned 1ose, >o%ever, %e cannot appl) the same
conviction to 1oseGs thesis that the totalit) of /onaGs acts constituted ps)chological
incapacit) as determined b) Article !6 of the .amil) #ode, -here is inade4uate
credible evidence that her PdefectsQ %ere alread) present at the inception of, or prior
to, the marriage, In other %ords, her alleged ps)chological incapacit) did not satisf)
the ;urisprudential re4uisite of P;uridical antecedence,Q
Also, the ps)chiatric report of 5r, 7ondainregarding/onaGs ps)chological condition
%as gathered solel) from 1ose and his %itnesses,
#ontrar) to 1oseGs assertion, /ona had no manifest desire to abandon 1ose at the
beginning of their marriage and %as, in fact, living %ith him for the most part of their
relationship from 19! up to the time %hen 1ose drove her a%a) from their con;ugal
home in 19CC, &n the contrar), the record sho%s that it %as 1ose %ho %as
constantl) a%a) from /ona b) reason of his militar) duties and his later incarceration,
Page 29 of
51
A reasonable e3planation for /onaGs refusal to accompan) 1ose in his militar)
assignments in other parts of +indanao ma) be simpl) that those locations %ere
kno%n conflict areas in the seventies, An) doubt as to /onaGs desire to live %ith 1ose
%ould later be erased b) the fact that /ona lived %ith 1ose in their con;ugal home in
.ort /onifacio during the follo%ing decade,
In vie% of the foregoing, the badges of /onaGs alleged ps)chological incapacit), i,e,,
her se3ual infidelit) and abandonment, can onl) be convincingl) traced to the period
of time after her marriage to 1ose and not to the inception of the said marriage,
8e have stressed time and again that Article !6 of the .amil) #ode is not to be
confused %ith a divorce la% that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes
therefore manifest themselves, It refers to a serious ps)chological illness afflicting a
part) even before the celebration of the marriage, It is a malad) so grave and so
permanent as to deprive one of a%areness of the duties and responsibilities of the
matrimonial bond one is about to assume, -hese marital obligations are those
provided under Articles 6C to 1, ::A, ::1 and ::D of the .amil) #ode,
"eclaration of !ullit*
!iJal vs. 2a*ado8 ?4A SCR 944
%arch 9@7 4DDD
'acts. "epito 0i6al %as married to -eodulfa on September :6, 19B, &n April :B,
19CD, he shot and killed her, :A months thereafter, he remarried 0orma /ada)og, the
respondent here%ith, After "epito died, his heirs b) his first marriage filed a petition
for declaration of nullit) on the marriage of their father %ith 0orma /ada)og on the
ground of lack of marriage license, 0orma /ada)og contends that the ground have no
legal basis for her marriage to "epito according to Article !B of the .amil) #ode no
marriage license is necessar) for person %ho have cohabited for atl east five )ears,
-he respondent also contends that petitioners are not among those allo%ed b) the
la% to file a suit for declaration of nullit) of her marriage to "epito,
-he trial court ruled in favor of the respondent on the ground that indeed the
.amil) #ode is silent as to situation, -he "etition should have been filed before the
death of "epito and not after his death, -hus, the petitioner appealed to the Supreme
#ourt,
Issue. (1$ 8hether or not the respondent is right to contend that no need of marriage
license %as necessar) for "epito and her have cohabited for at least five )ears,
(:$8hether or not the second marriage of "epito valid,
Held. "epito and 0orma could not have possibl) be legall) cohabited for at least five
)ears since "epito %as still married to -eodulfa counting back%ards from the time he
and 0orma celebrated their marriage, A period of cohabitation is characteri(ed b)
e3clusivit) and continuit), -here should be no legal impediment on either part) to
marr), "epitoGs previous marriage to -eodulfa is a legal impediment dis4ualif)ing him
to the e3ception of a marriage license, -hus, his second marriage should have a
marriage license to be valid, In this case, the marriage of "epito and 0orma lacking
the formal re4uisite of a marriage licese is therefore void,
Co>uan8o v. -alma
.A#-S@ 2duardo #o;uangco filed %ith the court the instant complaint for disbarment
against Att), *eo "alma alleging as grounds Pdeceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in
office, violation of his oath as a la%)er and grossl) immoral conduct,G
#o;uangco and "alma met sometime in the AGs , #o;;uangco %as a client of A##7A
and "alma %as the la%)er assigned to handle his cases, #onse4uentl), "almaGs
relationship %ith #o;uangcoGs famil) became intimate, >e traveled and dined %ith
them abroad, >e fre4uented their house and even tutored #o;uangcoGs ::=)ear old
daughter, +aria *uisa, then a student of Assumption #onvent,
8ithout the kno%ledge of #o;uangco, "alma married *isa in >,I, It %as onl) the ne3t
da) that #on;uangco %as informed and "alma assured him that ever)thing is legal,
#o;uangco %as shocked, kno%ing full) %ell that "alma is a married man and has !
children,
ISSJ2@ 8hether or not "alma should be held liable,
>2*5@ N2S, "alma married *Isa %hile he has a subsisting marriage %ith
2li(abeth >ermosisima, Jndoubtedl), "almaGs act constitute grossl) immoral conduct,
a ground for disbarment, >e made a mocker) of marriage %hich is a sacred institution
demanding respect and dignit), >is act of contracting a second marriage is contrar)
to honest), ;ustice, decenc) and moralit),
-he circumstances here speak of a clear case of betra)al of trust and abuse of
confidence, +oreover, he availed of #o;uangcoGs resources b) securing a plane ticket
from #o;uangcoGs office in order to marr) his daughter in >,I, %ithout his consent,
"almaGs culpabilit) is aggravated b) the fact that *isa %as :: and %as under
ps)chological treatment for emotional immaturit),
"alma is disbarred from the practice of la%,
<E "e Castro v "e Castro
"eclaration of !ullit*
'CTS@ 7eilen and Annabelle 5e #astro applied for a marriage license %hich
ho%ever e3pired so instead the) e3ecuted an affidavit stating that the) had been
living together as husband and %ife for five )ears and got married in a civil rite %ith a
;udge, -he) in fact became s%eethearts during 1991 and onl) started engaging in se3
in &ctober 199B, -he) e3ecuted the affidavit on +arch 199D,
Annabelle gave birth to 7einna and is no% asking for support from 7eilen as his %ife
and for their child, >e sa)s that their marriage %as void ab initio because the)
e3ecuted a fake affidavitS that he %as ;ust asked to sign the marriage contract
because she %anted to be saved from embarrassment because she %as pregnant
Page 30 of
51
and he didnGt obtain the necessar) parental advice, >e avers that the) never lived as
husband and %ife and he never ackno%ledged the child,
-rial #ourt@ 0o valid marriage because no marriage license but as father of child need
to give support,
#A@ Since the presumption is marriage is valid until declared null and void then child
is presumed his and he must give support and -# is %rong in declaring the marriage
a nullit) %hen the action %as for support,
ISSUE@ 1, 8?0 -# had ;urisdiction to determine the validit) of the marriageL
:, 8?0 child is the daughter of 7eilenL
HE("@
1, N2SH -he trial court had ;urisdiction to determine the validit) of the
marriage bet%een petitioner and respondent, -he validit* of a void marria8e ma*
be collaterall* attac:ed, In 0inal v /a)adog, the #ourt said that Pother than for
purposes of remarriage, no ;udicial action is necessar) to declare a marriage an
absolute nullit), .or other purposes R the court ma) pass upon the validit) of
marriage even in a suit not directl) instituted to 4uestion the same so long as it is
essential to the determination of the case,Q >o%ever, evidence must be adduced,
testimonial or documentar), to prove the e3istence of grounds rendering such a
marriage an absolute nullit),
In this case, the) had no marriage license and had a false affidavit, -he falsit) of
%hich Annabelle admitted upon cross=e3amination so under the .amil) #ode the
absence of an) of the essential and formal re4uisites renders the marriage void,
:, NesH 7einna is his illegitimate daughter and is entitled to support, he
admitted so in his affidavit for ta3 e3emption,
"eclaration of !ullit* and 2i8am*
<B. /RI(($ v. -E$-(E ;%R=
1acts$ Victoria 1arillo %as convicted for bigam), %hich %as affirmed b) the #A and
S#, She is no% moving for reconsideration arguing that since her marriages %ere
entered into before the .# took effect, the applicable la% is Sec, :9 of the +arriage
*a% (Act !61!$ instead of Art, BA of the .#, %hich re4uires a final ;udgment declaring
the previous marriage void before a person ma) contract a subse4uent marriage,
/ackground@ In the original case kase, she got married t%ice to t%o different gu)s,
>er second husband filed an annulment case against her %hich ended up %ith her
conviction of bigam), /ut during the proceedings, she instituted an annulment case
against her first husband, -he 7-# declared her first marriage null and void because
of ps)chological incapacit), She filed an +7 %ith the #A on her bigam) case using
this subse4uent declaration as a defense, /ut the #A and the S# did not allo% it
because a ;udicial declaration of nullit) is needed before a person can enter into a
subse4uent marriage (Art, BA$,
Issue$ Should the .# appl)L = N2S
Ratio$
As far back as 199D, the S# made the declaration that Art, BA, %hich is a rule of
procedure, should be applied retroactivel) because Art, :D6 of the .# itself provides
that the #ode shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does nor pre;udice or impair
vested or ac4uired rights, -he retroactive application of procedural la%s is not
violative of an) right of a person %ho ma) feel that he is adversel) affected, -he
reason is that as a general la%, no vested right ma) attach to, or arise from,
procedural la%s,
In the case at bar, VictoriaGs clear intent is to obtain a ;udicial declaration of nullit) of
her first marriage and thereafter to invoke the ver) same ;udgment to prevent her
prosecution for bigam), She cannot have her cake and eat it too, &ther%ise, all that
an adventurous bigamist has to do is disregard Art, BA of the .#, contract a
subse4uent marriage %ithout obtaining a declaration of nullit) of the first on the
assumption that the first marriage is void, Such scenario %ould render nugator) the
provision on bigam) (the original case said that for bigam) to e3ist, it is enough that
the first marriage subsisted %hen the second marriage %as entered into$,
ntone v. 2eronilla
.acts@ Antone e3ecuted a complaint for bigam) against /eronilla, alleging that her
marriage %ith respondent had not )et been legall) dissolved %hen the latter
contracted a second marriage %ith +aguillo, /eronilla moved to 4uash the
information because his marriage %ith Antone %as declared null and void b) the 7-#,
Absent a first marriage, he cannot be charged %ith bigam), -he court 4uashed the
information, +7 denied, #A dismissed the case as %ell,
Issue@ 8hether or not the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion %hen it
sustained the motion to 4uash on the basis of a fact contrar) to those alleged in the
information
>eld@ Nes
A motion to 4uash an information is a mode b) %hich an accused assails the validit)
of a criminal complaint or information against him for insufficienc) on its face in point
of la%, or for defects %hich are apparent in the face of the information,
-he court has consistentl) held that a ;udicial declaration of nullit) is re4uired before a
valid subse4uent marriage can be contracted, or else, %hat transpires is a bigamous
marriage
-he issue on the declaration of nullit) of the marriage bet%een petitioner and
respondent onl) after the latter contracted the subse4uent marriage is immaterial for
the purpose of establishing that the facts alleged in the information does not
constitute an offense, .ollo%ing the same rationale, neither ma) such defense be
interposed b) the respondent in his motion to 4uash b) %a) of e3ception to the
Page 31 of
51
established rule that facts contrar) to the allegations in the information are matters of
defense %hich ma) be raised onl) during the presentation of evidence,
-he trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in 4uashing the information, It
considered an evidence introduced to prove a fact not alleged thereat disregarding
the settled rules that a motion to 4uash is a h)pothetical admission of the facts stated
in the information, and that facts not alleged thereat ma) be appreciated onl) under
e3ceptional circumstances, none of %hich is present in this case,
#ase is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings,
+oidable %arria8es. Grounds
%!UE( G. (%E($R versus THE H$!. REGI$!( TRI( C$URT $' (S
-I!S CIT,
"etitioner +anuel ', Almelor (+anuel$ and respondent *eonida -rinidad (*eonida$
%ere married on 1anuar) :9, 19C9 at the +anila #athedral, -heir union bore three
children,+anuel and *eonida are both medical practitioners, an anesthesiologist and
a pediatrician, After eleven (11$ )ears of marriage, *eonida filed a petition %ith the
7-# in *as "inas #it) to annul their marriage on the ground that +anuel %as
ps)chologicall) incapacitated to perform his marital obligations, *eonida averred that
+anuels kind and gentle demeanor did not last long, In the public e)e, +anuel %as
the picture of a perfect husband and father, -his %as not the case in his private life, At
home, *eonida described +anuel as a harsh disciplinarian, unreasonabl) meticulous,
easil) angered, +anuels unreasonable %a) of imposing discipline on their children
%as the cause of their fre4uent fights as a couple, *eonida complained that this %as
in stark contrast to the alleged lavish affection +anuel has for his mother, +anuels
deep attachment to his mother and his dependence on her decision=making %ere
incomprehensible to *eonida,
.urther adding to her %oes %as his concealment to her of his homose3ualit), >er
suspicions %ere first aroused %hen she noticed +anuels peculiar closeness to his
male companions, .or instance, she caught him in an indiscreet telephone
conversation manifesting his affection for a male caller, She also found several
pornographic homose3ual materials in his possession, >er %orse fears %ere
confirmed %hen she sa% +anuel kissed another man on the lips, -he man %as a
certain 5r, 0ogales, 8hen she confronted +anuel, he denied ever)thing, At this point,
*eonida took her children and left their con;ugal abode, Since then, +anuel stopped
giving support to their children,
5r, Valentina del .onso 'arcia, a clinical ps)chologist, %as presented to prove
*eonidas claim, 5r, del .onso 'arcia testified that she conducted evaluative
intervie%s and a batter) of ps)chiatric tests on *eonida, She also had a one=time
intervie% %ith +anuel and face=to=face intervie%s %ith +a, "aulina #orrinne (the
eldest child$, She concluded that +anuel is ps)chologicall) incapacitated, Such
incapacit) is marked b) antecedenceS it e3isted even before the marriage and
appeared to be incurable,
ISSJ2@ 8hether not the marriage could be annulled based on homose3ualit)L 0&,
Concealment of homosexuality is the proper ground to annul a marriage, not
homosexuality per se.
+anuel is a desperate man determined to salvage %hat remains of his marriage,
"ersistent in his 4uest, he fought back all the heav) accusations of incapacit), cruelt),
and doubted masculinit) thro%n at him, -he trial court declared that *eonidas petition
for nullit) had no basis at all because the supporting grounds relied upon can not
le8all* ma:e a case under rticle ?E of the 'amil* Code, It %ent further b) citing
Republic v. Molina@ PIndeed, mere allegations of conflicting personalities,
irreconcilable differences, incessant 4uarrels and?or beatings, unpredictable mood
s%ings, infidelities, vices, abandonment, and difficult), neglect, or failure in the
performance of some marital obligations do not suffice to establish ps)chological
incapacit),Q If so, the lo%er court should have dismissed outright the petition for not
meeting the guidelines set in Molina, 8hat *eonida attempted to demonstrate %ere
+anuels homose3ual tendencies b) citing overt acts generall) predominant among
homose3ual individuals, She %anted to prove that the perceived homose3ualit)
rendered +anuel incapable of fulfilling the essential marital obligations,
2videntl), no sufficient proof %as presented to substantiate the allegations
that +anuel is a homose3ual and that he concealed this to *eonida at the time of their
marriage, -he lo%er court considered the public perception of +anuels se3ual
preference %ithout the corroboration of %itnesses, Also, it took cogni(ance of
+anuels peculiarities and interpreted it against his se3ualit), 2ven assuming, e:
gratia argumenti, that +anuel is a homose3ual, the lo%er court cannot appreciate it as
a ground to annul his marriage %ith *eonida, -he la% is clear a marriage ma) be
annulled %hen the consent of either part) %as obtained b) fraud, such as
concealment of homose3ualit), 0o%here in the said decision %as it proven b)
preponderance of evidence that +anuel %as a homose3ual at the onset of his
marriage and that he deliberatel) hid such fact to his %ife, It is the concealment of
homose3ualit), and not homose3ualit) per se, that vitiates the consent of the innocent
part), Such concealment presupposes bad faith and intent to defraud the other part)
in giving consent to the marriage, #onsent is an essential re4uisite of a valid
marriage, -o be valid, it must be freel) given b) both parties, An allegation of vitiated
consent must be proven b) preponderance of evidence, -he .amil) #ode has
enumerated an e3clusive list of circumstances constituting fraud, >omose3ualit) per
se is not among those cited, but its concealment,

-rocedure and Effects of Termination of %arria8e
Tuason v. C
.acts@ In 19C9, private respondent +aria Victoria *ope( -uason (+aria$ filed a
petition for annulment or declaration of nullit) of her marriage to petitioner 2milio 7,
-uason (-uason$ on the ground of ps)chological incapacit), -uasonGs defense %as
that he and +aria initiall) had a normal relationship but that this changed in 19C:
%hen his %ife did not accord the respect and dignit) due him as a husband but
treated him like a persona non grata.
After +aria rested her case, the trial court scheduled the reception of -uasonGs
evidence, -%o da)s before the scheduled hearing, a counsel for petitioner moved for
Page 32 of
51
a postponement on the ground that the principal counsel %as out of the countr) and
due to return on the first %eek of 1une,

-he court reset the hearing, /ut on the ne%
date, -uason failed to appear, &n +ariaGs oral motion, the court declared -uason to
have %aived his right to present evidence and deemed the case submitted for
decision on the basis of the evidence presented,
-he 7-# declared the marriage null and void and a%arded custod) of the children to
+aria on the ground of -uasonGs ps)chological incapacit),
-he ;udgment %as said to be %ithout pre;udice to the application of the other effects
of annulment as provided for under Arts, DA and D1 of the .amil) #ode of the
"hilippines,
8hile his counsel received a cop) of the decision, -uason did not file an) appeal,
After%ards, -uason filed a <+otion for 5issolution of #on;ugal "artnership of 'ains
and Ad;udication to "laintiff of the #on;ugal "roperties,<

+aria opposed the motion,
Also on the same da), -uason, through ne% counsel, filed %ith the trial court a
petition for relief from ;udgment of the decision of nullit),
-he 7-# denied the relief from ;udgment, &n appeal, the #A affirmed the 7-#Gs
order,
Issues@ 1, 8&0 the relief of ;udgment should be granted,
:, 8&0 the prosecurtor is re4uired to intervene in all cases for annulment or
declaration of nullit),
>eld@1, 0oH
:, 0oH
7atio@1, Jnder Sec, : of 7ule !C, a final and e3ecutor) ;udgment or order of the
7egional -rial #ourt ma) be set aside, and relief from ;udgment granted, on the
ground of fraud, accident, mistake or e3cusable negligence, In addition, the petitioner
must assert facts sho%ing that he has a good, substantial and meritorious defense or
cause of action,

If the petition is granted, the court shall proceed to hear and
determine the case as if a timel) motion for ne% trial had been granted therein,

In the case at bar, the decision had alread) become final and e3ecutor) %hen -uason
failed to appeal during the reglementar) period, -uason ho%ever contends he %as
denied due process %hen, after failing to appear on t%o scheduled hearings, the trial
court deemed him to have %aived his right to present evidence and rendered
;udgment on the basis of the evidence for +aria, >e ;ustifies his absence at the
hearings on the ground that he %as then <confined for medical and?or rehabilitation
reasons,<

-he records, ho%ever, sho% that the former counsel of -uason did not
inform the trial court of this confinement, And %hen the court rendered its decision,
the same counsel %as out of the countr) for %hich reason the decision became final
and e3ecutor) as no appeal %as taken therefrom,

-he failure of petitioners counsel to notif) him on time of the adverse ;udgment to
enable him to appeal therefrom is negligence %hich is not e3cusable, 0otice sent to
counsel of record is binding upon the client, Similarl) ine3cusable %as the failure of
his former counsel to inform the trial court of -uasonGs confinement and medical
treatment as the reason for his non=appearance at the scheduled hearings, -uason
has not given an) reason %h) his former counsel, intentionall) or unintentionall), did
not inform the court of this fact,
:, /ecause of the danger of collusion, in all cases for annulment, declaration of nullit)
of marriage and legal separation, the prosecuting attorne) or fiscal is ordered to
appear on behalf of the state for the purpose of preventing an) collusion bet%een the
parties and to take care that their evidence is not fabricated or suppressed, If the
defendant spouse fails to ans%er the complaint, the court cannot declare him or her in
default but instead, should order the prosecuting attorne) to determine if collusion
e3ists bet%een the parties,

-he prosecuting attorne) or fiscal ma) oppose the
application for legal separation or annulment through the presentation of his o%n
evidence, if in his opinion, the proof adduced is dubious and fabricated,

-he facts in the case at bar do not call for the strict application of Articles BC and 6A of
the .amil) #ode, .or one, -uason %as not declared in default b) the trial court for
failure to ans%er, -uason filed his ans%er to the complaint and contested the cause of
action alleged b) +aria, >e activel) participated in the proceedings belo% b) filing
several pleadings and cross=e3amining the %itnesses of private 7espondent, It is
cr)stal clear that ever) stage of the litigation %as characteri(ed b) a no=holds barred
contest and not b) collusion,
-he role of the prosecuting attorne) or fiscal in annulment of marriage and legal
separation proceedings is to determine %hether collusion e3ists bet%een the parties
and to take care that the evidence is not suppressed or fabricated, -uasonGs
vehement opposition to the annulment proceedings negates the conclusion that
collusion e3isted bet%een the parties, -here is no allegation b) -uason that evidence
%as suppressed or fabricated b) an) of the parties, Jnder these circumstances, %e
are convinced that the non=intervention of a prosecuting attorne) to assure lack of
collusion bet%een the contending parties is not fatal to the validit) of the proceedings
in the trial court,
!CHET vs. !CHET
B:B S#7A :D
'CTS
"etitioner +arietta Ancheta and respondent 7odolfo Ancheta %ere married on +arch
D, 19D9 and had eight children, After !! )ears of marriage the petitioner left the
respondent and their children, -heir con;ugal properties %ere later separated through
a court=sanctioned compromise agreement %here the petitioner got among others a
resort in #avite, 8hen the husband %anted to marr) again, he filed before the
7egional -rial #ourt a petition for the declaration of nullit) of his marriage %ith the
petitioner on the ground of ps)chological incapacit) on 1une D, 199D, Although he
kne% that the petitioner %as alread) residing at the resort in #avite, he alleged in his
petition that the petitioner %as residing at *as "i6as, +etro +anila, such that
summons never reached her, 0evertheless substituted service %as rendered to their
son at his residence in #avite, "etitioner %as then declared in default for failing to
ans%er the said petition, 1ust over a month after it %as filed, the trial court granted the
petition and declared the marriage of the parties void ab initio,
Page 33 of
51
.ive )ears later, petitioner challenged the trial courtGs order declaring as void ab initio
her marriage %ith respondent 7odolfo, citing e3trinsic fraud and lack of ;urisdiction
over her person, among others, She alleged that the respondent lied on her real
address in his petition so she never received summons on the case, hence depriving
her of her right to be heard, -he #ourt of Appeals dismissed her petition so she no%
comes to the Supreme #ourt for revie% on certiorari,
ISSUE 8hether or not the declaration of nullit) of marriage %as validL
HE(" 0&, -he trial court and the public prosecutor defied Article BC of the .amil)
#ode and 7ule 1C, Section 6 of the 19CD 7ules of #ourt (no% 7ule 9, Section !EeF of
the 199 7ules of #ivil "rocedure$,
A grant of annulment of marriage or legal separation b) default is fraught %ith the
danger of collusion, sa)s the #ourt, P>ence, in all cases for annulment, declaration of
nullit) of marriage and legal separation, the prosecuting attorne) or fiscal is ordered
to appear on behalf of the State for the purpose of preventing an) collusion bet%een
the parties and to take care that their evidence is not fabricated or suppressed,Q PIf the
defendant=spouse fails to ans%er the complaint, the court cannot declare him or her
in default but instead, should order the prosecuting attorne) to determine if collusion
e3ists bet%een the parties, -he prosecuting attorne) or fiscal ma) oppose the
application for legal separation or annulment through the presentation of his o%n
evidence, if in his opinion, the proof adduced is dubious and fabricated,Q >ere, the
trial court immediatel) received the evidence of the respondent e3=parte and rendered
;udgment against the petitioner P%ithout a %himper of protest from the public
prosecutor %ho even did not challenge the motion to declare petitioner in default,Q
-he Supreme #ourt reiterates@ P-he task of protecting marriage as an inviolable social
institution re4uires vigilant and (ealous participation and not mere pro=forma
compliance, -he protection of marriage as a sacred institution re4uires not ;ust the
defense of a true and genuine union but the e3posure of an invalid one as %ell,Q
,U +S. ,U
'CTS. 2ric 1onathan Nu filed a petition for habeas corpus before the #A, alleging
that his estranged %ife, #aroline -ancha)=Nu, unla%full) %ithheld from him the
custod) of their minor child, /ianca Nu, -he petition included a pra)er for the a%ard to
him of the custod) of /ianca,
2ric also filed a petition for declaration of nullit) of marriage and the dissolution of
absolute communit) of propert) before the "asig 7-#, -he petition also included a
pra)er for the a%ard to him of the custod) of /ianca, sub;ect to the final resolution b)
the #A of his petition for habeas corpus, /ecause of this, the #A dismissed the
petition for habeas corpus, having been rendered moot and academic,
ISSUE. 8&0 the "asig 7-# ac4uired ;urisdiction over the custod) issueLLL
RU(I!G. N2S,
Art, B9, 5uring the pendenc) of the action Efor annulment or declaration of nullit) of
marriageF and in the absence of ade4uate provisions in a %ritten agreement bet%een
the spouses, the #ourt shall provide for the support of the spouses
and the custod* and support of their common children. 3 3 3 It shall also
provide for appropriate visitation ri8hts of the other parent. (2mphasis and
underscoring supplied$
1
Art, DA, 3 3 3 3
-he final ;udgment in such cases Efor the annulment or declaration of nullit) of
marriageF shall provide for the li4uidation, partition and distribution of the properties of
the spouses, the custod* and support of the common children7 and the deliver) of
their presumptive legitimes, unless such other matters had been ad>udicated in
previous >udicial proceedin8s.< (2mphasis and underscoring added$
/) 2ricGs filing of the case for declaration of nullit) of marriage before the "asig 7-#
he automaticall) submitted the issue of the custod) of /ianca as an incident thereof,
After the #A subse4uentl) dismissed the habeas corpus case, there %as no need for
2ric to replead his pra)er for custod) for, as above=4uoted provisions of the .amil)
#ode provide, the custod) issue in a declaration of nullit) case is deemed pleaded,
(e8al separation. -rocedure
E!RIC$ (. -CETE7 C(RIT "E ( C$!CE-CI$!7 E%E(" C. -CETE7
E+E(I! C. -CETE and E"UR"$ C. -CETE vs, H$!. G(ICERI$ +.
CRRIG7 /R. and C$!CE-CI$! ;C$!CHIT= (!IS -CETE
'acts. #oncepcion Alanis filed a complaint for the declaration of nullit) of the
marriage bet%een her husband 2nrico "acete and one #larita de la #oncepcion, as
%ell as for legal separation (bet%een Alanis and "acete$, accounting and separation
of propert), In her complaint, she averred that she %as married to "acete in 19!C in
#otabato, In 19BC, "acete contracted a second marriage %ith #larita de la
#oncepcion in Iidapa%an, 0orth #otabato %hich Alanis onl) learned of in 199,
5uring AlanisG marriage to "acete, the latter ac4uired vast propert) consisting of large
tracts of land, fishponds and several motor vehicles and placed the several pieces of
propert) either in his name and #larita or in the names of his children %ith #larita and
other dummies,
-he defendants %ere each served %ith summons on 0ovember 1D, 199,
-he) filed a motion for an e3tension of :A da)s %ithin %hich to file an ans%er, -he
court granted the motion, -he defendants filed a second motion for an e3tension of
another !A da)s %hich %as granted but reduced to 4D da*s, -he &rder of the court
(reducing the e3tension$ %as mailed to defendants' counsel but it appears that the
defendants were unaware of this so the) again filed another motion for an
e3tension of P1D da)s counted from the e3piration of the !A=da) period previousl)
sought< %ithin %hich to file an ans%er, -he follo%ing da), the court denied this last
motion on the ground that it was filed after the 4DCda* e)tension had e3pired, -he
plaintiff thereupon filed a motion to declare the defendants in default, %hich the court
forth%ith granted, -he plaintiff %as then directed to present her evidence,

-he court
ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the issuance of a 5ecree of *egal Separation,
and declared the properties as con;ugal properties of the plaintiff and defendant half=
Page 34 of
51
and=half, -he subse4uent marriage bet%een "acete and #onception %as also
declared void ab initio, 5efendants filed a special civil action of certiorari,
Issue. 8&0 defendants %ere improperl) placed in default ON2SH
Rulin8. Art, 1A1 of the Civil Code provides@ 0o decree of legal separation shall be
promulgated upon a stipulation of facts or b) confession of ;udgment, In case of non=
appearance of the defendant, the court shall order the prosecuting attorne) to in4uire
%hether or not a collusion bet%een the parties e3ists, If there is no collusion, the
prosecuting attorne) shall intervene for the State in order to take care that the
evidence for the plaintiff is not fabricated,
-he polic) of Article 1A1 of the ne% #ivil #ode, calling for the intervention of the state
attorne)s in case of uncontested proceedings for legal separation, is to emphasi(e
that marriage is more than a mere contractS that it is a social institution in %hich the
state is vitall) interested, so that its continuation or interruption cannot be made to
depend upon the parties themselves, (/ro%n v, Nambao$
Article 1A! of the #ivil #ode, no% Article DC of the .amil) #ode, further mandates
that an action for legal separation must in no case be tried before si3 months shall
have elapsed since the filing of the petition, obviousl) in order to provide the parties a
<cooling=off< period, In this interim, the court should take steps to%ard getting the
parties to reconcile,
Also, Sec,6 of 7ule 1C of the Rules of Court provides that if the defendant in an
action for annulment of marriage or for legal separation fails to ans%er, the court shall
order the prosecuting attorne) to investigate %hether or not a collusion bet%een the
parties e3ists, and if there is no collusion, to intervene for the State in order to see to
it that the evidence submitted is not fabricated,
It is clear that the petitioner did, in fact, specificall) pra) for legal separation, -hat
other remedies, %hether principal or incidental, have like%ise been sought in the
same action cannot dispense, nor e3cuse compliance, %ith an) of the statutor)
re4uirements,
(i1uidation. Effect of "eath of $ne of the -arties
Carmen (apuG S* ;represented b* %acario (apuG= vs Eufemio S. Eufemio ;alias
Eufemio S* U*=
.acts@ #armen *apu( filed a petition for legal separation against 2ufemio S, 2ufemio,
It %as alleged that the) %ere married, the) had no child and that the) ac4uired
properties during their marriage, She discovered that 2ufemio %as cohabiting %ith a
#hinese %oman named 'o >iok,
2ufemio counter=claimed that his marriage %ith #armen *apu( %as void ab
initio on the ground that he had a prior and subsisting marriage under #hinese la%s
and customes %ith one 'o >iok,
-rial proceeded and the parties adduced their evidence, >o%ever, before the
trial could be completed, #armen *apu( died in a vehicular accident, -he court %as
notified, #ounsel for #armen also moved that +acario *apu( substitute his daughter
#armen,
2ufemio then moved to dismiss the petition for legal separation on the
ground that the death of #armen abated the action, -he court issued an order
dismissing the case, 0otabl), even if 2ufemio filed counterclaims (for nullit) of the
marriage$, he no longer pursued this after the case %as dismissed,
Issue@ 5oes the death of a plaintiff (before final decree$ in an action for legal
separation abate the actionL
>eld@ An action for legal separation %hich involves ;ust a ph)sical separation of the
spouses is purel) personal, -hus, being purel) personal in character it follo%s that the
death of one part) to the action causes the death of the action itself,
-he resulting propert) relations %ould also appear to be the sole effect of the
decree of legal separation issued, -hus, the propert) rights cannot also survive the
death of the plaintiff,
A further reason %h) an action for legal separation is abated b) the death of
the plaintiff, even if propert) rights are involved, is that these rights are mere effects of
the decree of separation, their source being the decree itselfS %ithout the decree such
rights do not come into e3istence,
As to the action of 2ufemio to declare his marriage %ith #armen as void ab
initio, it is apparent that such action became moot and academic after #armen died
because such death automaticall) dissolved the union, -heir propert) rights should
be resolved and determined in a proper action for partition,
ntionio %acadan8dan8 vs. C7 'ilomena Gaviana %acadan8dan8
Effect of death of one of the parties
Antonio and .ilomena got married in 19B6 after living together for : )ears, -heir
business gre% from a humble bu)=and=sell business and sari=sari store operation into
merchandising, trucking, transportation, rice and corn mill businesses, abaca
stripping, real estate, and others, -he) have 6 children, 8hile their financial
stabili(ed, their marriage became shak) up to 196D %hen the) split up and the %ife,
.ilomena, left for #ebu, 8hen she returned to 5avao in 191, she learned of the illicit
affairs of her estranged husband and she decided to file a complaint for legal
separation,
-he ;udgment %as rendered ordering the legal separation of the spouses, Since there
is no complete list of the communit) propert) %hich has to be divided, pending the
dissolution of the con;ugal propert), Antonio %as ordered to pa) "1Ak as support for
the %ife and the children,
.ilomena filed a motion for the appointment of an administrator and urging favorable
action to impede unla%ful se4uestration of some con;ugal assets and clandestine
transfers b) Antonio, Several motions ob;ecting to this %ere filed b) Antonio but %ere
denied b) the court, Antonio then appealed to #A, %hich dismissed the case, >ence,
the case %as brought to S#, "ending appeal, Antonio died, #ounsel for Antonio
Page 35 of
51
informed the court and filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the case is alread)
moot and academic as a conse4uence of the death of petitioner, .ilomena agreed,
ISSJ2@ 8&0 the death of the petitioner rendered the case moot and academicL
>2*5@ 0o, *egal problems do not cease simpl) because one of the parties dies and
in vie% of the significant issues raised, this #ourt resolved to meet said issues
frontall),
In this case, Antonio had averred that the #A gravel) erred in holding that respondent
1udgeGs incomplete decision of 1anuar) B, 19! (%hich declared them legall)
separated$ had become final and e3ecutorS and that the same #ourt committed an
error in holding that the appointment of an administrator in the case %as proper,
It is important to note that the -# had resolved onl) the issue of legal separation and
reserved for supplemental decision the division of the con;ugal properties, A
supplement decision on the division of propert) is a mere incident of the decree of
legal separation the latter being the main ;udgment,
8e do not find merit in petitionerGs submission that the 4uestioned decision had not
become final and e3ecutor) since the la% e3plicitl) and clearl) provides for the
dissolution and li4uidation of con;ugal partnership of gains of the absolute communit)
of propert) as among the effects of the final decree of legal separation,
A decree of legal separation, %hich does not )et include an order of division of
propert) is not an incomplete ;udgment and if not appealed, becomes final and
e3ecutor), Such dissolution and li4uidation are necessar) conse4uences of the final
decree and are mandated b) Art, 1A6 of the &ld #ivil #ode, +oreover, American
;urisprudence held that the provisions of the decree of legal separation should
definitel) and finall) determine the propert) rights and interests of the parties,
#onsidering that the decree of legal separation of the parties had long become final
and e3ecutor), the onl) issue left is the division of the con;ugal propert), /) reason of
the final decree of legal separation, ho%ever, con;ugal partnership of gains had been
automaticall) dissolved, -he la% clearl) spells out the effects of a final decree of legal
separation on the con;ugal propert), -hus, the rules on dissolution and li4uidation of
the con;ugal partnership of gains under the provisions of the #ivil #ode %ould be
applied effective 1anuar) B, 19! %hen the decree of legal separation became final,
+ide note..
5ue to the death of the petitioner, the la% on intestate succession should take over in
the disposition of %hatever remaining properties have been allocated to petitioner,
"etition is dismissed,
Effects of (e8al Separation -endente (ite
(erma vs C
*erma and 5ia( %ere married, >o%ever, *erma filed a case against his %ife 5ia( and
a certain 7amire( for adulter), 8hile this case %as pending, 5ia( like%ise filed a
complaint for legal separation against *erma based on : grounds@ concubinage and
attempt against her life, 5uring the pendenc) of the legal separation case, 5ia(
moved for and %as granted support pendente lite, *erma opposed, sa)ing that the
pending adulter) case against her is a sufficient basis to den) the motion for support
pendente lite, (it must be noted that later on, 5ia( %as found guilt) of adulter) b) the
trial court$
ISSJ2@ Is the pending adulter) case valid ground to den) the other spouse support
pendente liteL
S#@ N2S
1urisprudence provides that Padulter) is a good defenseQ,
-he right to separate support or maintenance, even from the con;ugal partnership
propert), presupposes the e3istence of a ;ustifiable cause for the spouse claiming
such right to live separatel), -his is implicit in Article 1AB of the #ivil #ode, %hich
states that after the filing of the petition for legal separation the spouses shall be
entitled to live separatel) from each other, A petition in bad faith, such as that filed b)
one %ho is himself or herself guilt) of an act %hich constitutes a ground for legal
separation at the instance of the other spouse, cannot be considered as %ithin the
intendment of the la% granting separate support, In fact under Article !A! of the same
#ode the obligation to give support shall cease <%hen the recipient, be he a forced
heir or not, has committed some act %hich gives rise to disinheritanceS< and under
Article 9:1 one of the causes for disinheriting a spouse is <%hen the spouse has
given cause for legal separation,<
EB. Sabalones v. C
"etitioner Samson Sabalones %as a member of our diplomatic service assigned to
different countries during his successive tours of duties, >e left to his %ife, herein
respondent 7emedios, the administration of some of their con;ugal properties for 1D
)ears,
8hen Samson retired as an ambassador, he came back to the "hilippines but not to
his %ife and kids, B )ears later, he sought ;udicial authori(ation to sell a lot and
building in 'reenhills, It belonged to the con;ugal partnership, but he claimed that he
%as 6C ),o, then, ver) sick and living alone %ithout an) income, >e needed his share
of the proceeds to defra) his hospitali(ation costs,
7emedios filed a counterclaim for legal separation, She alleged that the propert) in
'reenhills %as being occupied b) her and her 6 kids and that the) merel) depended
on support from the rentals earned b) another con;ugal propert) in .orbes "ark, She
also alleged that Samson %as living %ith another %oman, -helma, and their ! kids,
Page 36 of
51
She %anted a decree of legal separation and to order the li4uidation of their
properties, and that her husbandGs share be forfeited because of his adulter),
It %as found out in trial that Samson contracted a bigamous marriage %ith -helma,
#ourt granted legal separation and forfeiture of SamsonGs shares in the con;ugal
properties,
&n appeal to the #A b) Samson, 7emedios filed for issuance of a %rit of preliminar)
in;unction to en;oin Samson from interfering %ith the administration of their properties,
She alleged that he harassed the tenant of the .orbes "ark propert) and that he
disposed of their valuable con;ugal propert) in J,S in favor of his paramour, #A
granted the preliminar) in;unction,
Samson no% assails the order of the #A arguing that the la% provides no in;unctive
relief in such a case, since the la% provides for ;oint administration of con;ugal
properties, >e cites Art 1:B of the .#,
Issue@ %?n it %as proper for the #A to issue in;unctive relief ON2S
7uling@ -he la% does indeed grant to the spouses ;oint administration over the
con;ugal properties as provided in Art, 1:B, >o%ever, Art, 61 states that after a
petition for legal separation has been filed, the court shall, in the absence of a %ritten
agreement bet%een the couple, appoint either one of the spouses or a third person to
act as the administrator,
8hile it is true that no formal designation of the administrator has been made, it %as
implicit in the decision of the trial court den)ing the petitioner an) share in the
con;ugal properties (and thus also dis4ualif)ing him as administrator thereof$, -hat
designation %as approved b) the #A %hen it issued in favor of the respondent %ife
the preliminar) in;unction,
-he primar) purpose of the provisional remed) of in;unction is to preserve the status
4uo of the things or the relations bet%een the parties and thus protect the rights of the
plaintiff respecting these matters during the pendenc) of the suit, It ma) issue to
prevent future %rongs although no right has )et been violated,
-he #ourt noted that the %ife has been administering the sub;ect properties for
almost 19 )ears no% %ithout complaint on the part of the petitioner, >e has not
alleged that her administration has caused pre;udice to the con;ugal partnership,
In her motion for the preliminar) in;unction, the %ife alleged that the petitioner's
harassment of their tenant at .orbes "ark %ould ;eopardi(e the lease and deprive her
and her children of the income therefrom, She also testified the numerous properties
the) o%ned = dollar accounts, houses in U# and #ebu and a /en(, 7emedios also
complained that Samson e3ecuted a 4uitclaim over their con;ugal propert) in
#alifornia, J,S,A,, in favor of -helma, to improve his paramour's lu3urious lifest)le to
the pre;udice of his legitimate famil), -hese allegations, none of %hich %as refuted b)
the husband, sho% that the in;unction is necessar) to protect the interests of the
private respondent and her children and prevent the dissipation of the con;ugal
assets,
-he t%in re4uirements of a valid in;unction are the e3istence of a right and its actual
or threatened violation, 7egardless of the outcome of the appeal, it cannot be denied
that as the petitioner's legitimate %ife, 7emedios has a right to a share of the con;ugal
estate, -here is also enough evidence to raise the apprehension that entrusting said
estate to the petitioner ma) result in its improvident disposition to the detriment of his
%ife and children, Inasmuch as the trial court had earlier declared the forfeiture of the
petitioner's share in the con;ugal properties, it %ould be prudent not to allo% him in
the meantime to participate in its management,
*et it be stressed that the in;unction has not permanentl) installed the respondent
%ife as the administrator of the %hole mass of con;ugal assets, It has merel) allo%ed
her to continue administering the properties in the meantime %ithout interference from
the petitioner, pending the e3press designation of the administrator in accordance
%ith Article 61 of the .amil) #ode,
EA. SI$CHI +. G$H$!
Effects of /egal +eparation #endente /iteC)fter 1inality
.acts@ -his case involves a !A,AAA SU,+, parcel of land (propert)$registered in the
name of the Spouses 'o(on,
2lvira filed %ith #avite 7-# a petition for legal separation against her
husband Alfredo, 2lvira filed a notice of lis pendens, %hile the legal separation case
%as still pending, +ean%hile, Alfredo and +ario Siochi (+ario$ entered into an
Agreement to /u) and Sell involving the propert) for the price of "1C million, -he)
stipulated that Alfredo %as to remove the notice of lis pendens on the title, to have the
land e3cluded from the legal separation case and to secure an affidavit from the %ife
2lvira that the propert) %as the e3clusive propert) of Alfredo,
>o%ever, despite repeated demands from +ario, Alfredo failed to compl)
%ith these stipulations, After pa)ing the "D million earnest mone) as partial pa)ment
of the purchase price, +ario took possession of the propert) in September 199!,
+ean%hile, the courts declared the 'o(on spouses legall) separated, As
regards the propert), the 7-# declared it con;ugal, Alfredo also e3ecuted a deed of
donation over the said propert) in favour of their daughter 8inifred %ithout annotating
the notice of lis pendens, Alfredo, b) virtue of a Special "o%er of Attorne) e3ecuted in
his favor b) 8inifred, sold the propert) to Inter=5imensional 7ealt), Inc, (I57I$ for "1C
million,
+ario then filed %ith the +alabon 7-# a complaint for Specific "erformance
and 5amages, Annulment of 5onation and Sale, %ith "reliminar) +andator) and
"rohibitor) In;unction and?or -emporar) 7estraining &rder, 7-# ruled in favour of
+ario, #A affirmed, +ario appealed, contending that the Agreement should be treated
as a continuing offer %hich ma) be perfected b) the acceptance of the other spouse
before the offer is %ithdra%n, Since 2lviraGs conduct signified her ac4uiescence to the
Page 37 of
51
sale, +ario pra)s for the #ourt to direct Alfredo and 2lvira to e3ecute a 5eed of
Absolute Sale over the propert) upon his pa)ment of "9 million to 2lvira,
I57I alleges that it is a bu)er in good faith and for value,
ISSJ2 #ould Alfredo ?dispose alienate the propert)L 0&,
8as AlfredoGs share in the con;ugal propert) alread) forfeited in favour of
their daughter b) virtue of the decree of legal separationL 0&,
>2*5 -his case involves the con;ugal propert) of Alfredo and 2lvira, Since the
disposition of the propert) occurred after the effectivit) of the .amil) #ode, the
applicable la% is the .amil) #ode,
In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or other%ise unable to
participate in the administration of the con;ugal properties, the other spouse ma)
assume sole po%ers of administration, -hese po%ers do not include the po%ers of
disposition or encumbrance %hich must have the authorit) of the court or the %ritten
consent of the other spouse, In the absence of such authorit) or consent, the
disposition or encumbrance shall be void, >o%ever, the transaction shall be
construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third
person, and ma) be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance b) the other
spouse or authori(ation b) the court before the offer is %ithdra%n b) either or both
offerors,
In this case, Alfredo %as the sole administrator of the propert) because
2lvira, %ith %hom Alfredo %as separated in fact, %as unable to participate in the
administration of the con;ugal propert), >o%ever, as sole administrator of the
propert), Alfredo still cannot sell the propert) %ithout the %ritten consent of 2lvira or
the authorit) of the court, 8ithout such consent or authorit), the sale is void, -he
absence of the consent of one of the spouse renders the entire sale void, including
the portion of the con;ugal propert) pertaining to the spouse %ho contracted the sale,
2ven if the other spouse activel) participated in negotiating for the sale of the
propert), that other spouseGs %ritten consent to the sale is still re4uired b) la% for its
validit), -he Agreement entered into b) Alfredo and +ario %as %ithout the %ritten
consent of 2lvira, -hus, the Agreement is entirel) void,
As regards +arioGs contention that the Agreement is a continuing offer %hich
ma) be perfected b) 2lviraGs acceptance before the offer is %ithdra%n, the fact that
the propert) %as subse4uentl) donated b) Alfredo to 8inifred and then sold to I57I
clearl) indicates that the offer %as alread) %ithdra%n,
8e disagree %ith the #A %hen it held that the Z share of Alfredo in the
con;ugal partnership %as alread) forfeited in favour of the daughter, Among the
effects of the decree of legal separation is that the con;ugal partnership is dissolved
and li4uidated and the offending spouse %ould have no right to an) share of the net
profits earned b) the con;ugal partnership, It is onl) AlfredoGs share in the net profits
%hich is forfeited in favor of 8inifred, #learl), %hat is forfeited in favor of 8inifred is
not AlfredoGs share in the con;ugal partnership propert) but merel) in the net profits of
the con;ugal partnership propert),
8ith regard to I57I, %e agree %ith the #ourt of Appeals in holding that I57I
is not a bu)er in good faith, As found b) the 7-# +alabon and the #ourt of Appeals,
I57I had actual kno%ledge of facts and circumstances %hich should impel a
reasonabl) cautious person to make further in4uiries about the vendorGs title to the
propert),
E)ercise of -rofession
Go v C
'acts. -he &ng spouses contracted the services of Ale3 and 0anc) 'o to provide
video coverage of their (&ng spouses$ %edding, -hree times thereafter, the &ngs
tried to claim the video tape of their %edding, %hich the) planned to sho% to their
relatives in the Jnited States %here the) %ere to spend their hone)moon, and thrice
the) failed because the tape %as apparentl) not )et processed, -he parties then
agreed that the tape %ould be read) upon the return of the &ng spouses,
8hen the &ngs came home from their hone)moon, ho%ever, the) found out
that the tape had been erased and therefore, could no longer be delivered, -he) sued
the 'o spouses for damages, -he lo%er court and #A ruled in favor of the &ngs,
-he S# ruled in favor of the &ngs and held that the 'os are solidaril) liable,
>o%ever, Ale3 'o contended that his %ife, 0anc) 'o should be the onl) one liable as
%hen his %ife entered into the contract %ith the &ngs, she %as acting alone for her
sole interest,
Issue. Are the 'o spouses solidaril) liable to the &ng spousesL
"ecision. 0o, onl) 0anc) is liable,
Jnder Article ! of the .amil) #ode, the %ife ma) e3ercise an) profession,
occupation or engage in business %ithout the consent of the husband,
In this case, it %as onl) 0anc) 'o %ho entered into the contract %ith the
&ngs, -hus, she is solel) liable for the damages a%arded, pursuant to the principle
that contracts produce effect onl) as bet%een the parties %ho e3ecute them
C-G. E)clusive -roperties
BD. Sarmiento vs. IC ;9<? SCR 9D@=
'acts. : cases, .irst %as an action for support filed b) 0orma Sarmiento against
#esar Sarmiento, #ourt granted, a%arding "DAA?month support in favor of 0orma,
Second case %as an action filed b) 0orma asking for a declaration from the court that
the retirement benefits of #esar from "0/ is part of the con;ugal propert), DAK of
%hich should be given to her, #esar failed to appear during the pre=trial, 2ventuall),
the court ruled in favor of 0orma and ordered "0/ to refrain from releasing to #esar
all his retirement benefits and to deliver Z thereof to 0orma,
Issue. Is 0orma entitled to Z of the retirement benefits of #esarL
Page 38 of
51
Held. 0oH -he order of the lo%er court violated Section :6 of #A1C6 ('SIS
#harter$ %hich prohibits the attachment, garnishment or free(ing of an) benefit
granted b) the Act, -he order %as in effect, a free(e order,
-he directive to deliver Z of the retirement benefits to 0orma makes the
default ;udgment doubl) illegal because retirement benefits have been ad*udged as
gratuities or reward for lengthy and faithful service of the recipient and should be
treated as separate property of the retiree>spouse, -hus, if the monetar) benefits are
given gratis by the government because of previous %ork (like the retirement pa) of a
provincial auditor in +endo(a vs, 5i(on, *=!C, &ctober :D, 19D6$ or that of a 1ustice
of the "eace (2lcar vs, 2clar, #A=BA &,', 1:th Supp, 0o, 1C, p, C6$, this is a gratuit)
and should be considered separate propert) (Art, 1BC, #ivil #ode$,
!2. See the comment in page 1BB of the revie%er, differentiating contributor) and
non=contributor) retirement plans, -he latter forms part of the separate propert) %hile
the former, %hich is given b) most private companies %here 22s contribute to their
o%n retirement plans, should form part of the con*ugal partnership,
Char8es upon the $bli8ations of bsolute Communit*FCon>u8al -artnership
B9. W$!G + I!TER%E"ITE --E((TE C$URT
.A#-S@ 7omarico >enson and Iatrina "ineda %ere married, 5uring their marriage
7omarico bought a parcel of land from his father using mone) borro%ed from an
officemate, +ost of the time, the spouses %ere living separatel)S 7omarico sta)ed in
Angeles %hile Iatrina %as in +anila, &ne time, %hile Iatrina %as in >ong Iong,
pieces of ;e%elr) %ere consigned to her b) Anita #han, Iatrina issued a check for
DD,AAA as pa)ment for the ;e%elr) but %as dishonored for insufficienc) of funds,
-hereafter, Anitan #han, assisted b) her husband 7ick) 8ong , filed a complaint for
estafa, >o%ever the lo%er court dismissed the complaint on the theor) that estafa
cannot be committed %hen the issuance of the check %as for the pa)ment of a pre=
e3isting obligation, >ence, the liabilit) %as onl) civil,
-hus, petitioners filed a civil case for collection of a sum of mone), -he lo%er
court ruled in favor of petitioner and ordered that the propert) of the spouses
7omarico and Iatrina be levied upon, -ake note that during the hearing onl) Iatrina
%as represented b) counsel,
7omarico assails the lev) of the parcel of lands belonging to him sa)ing that
(1$ he %as deprived of his da) in court and (:$ he had nothing to do %ith the
transaction, *o%er court sustained this contention,
-he #A sustained the decision of the lo%er court sa)ing that the parcel of
lands levied %ere not con;ugal properties but %as e3clusive capital of 7omarico
bought using his o%n fundsS that even assuming it %as con;ugal propert), it cannot be
proceeded against because the debt of Iatrina %as not consented to b) 7omarico
neither %as it for the dail) e3penses of the famil) nor did it redound to the benefit of
the famil), In fact, there %as no evidence to the effect that administration of the
propert) %as transferred to Iatrina,
ISSJ2@ 8hether or not the parcels of land levied upon form part of the con;ugal
propert) O N2S
8hether or not the obligation incurred b) Iatrina is chargeable against the
con;ugal propert) = 0&
>2*5@
1, -he presumption is that a propert) is con;ugal unless rebutted b) clear
and convincing evidence, In this case, %hile it ma) be true that the
mone) used to bu) the land %as loaned from an officemate b)
7omarico, no evidence %as sho%n as to %here the repa)ment of that
loan came, If it came from 7omaricoGs salar), the land is con;ugal
propert)
:, Jnder the old civil code onl) the follo%ing are chargeable to the
con;ugal propert)@ (1$ debts incurred for the necessar) support of the
famil) (:$ %hen the administration of the con;ugal propert) %as
transferred to the %ife b) the court or b) the husband (!$ %hen
moderate gifts of charit) are given, -here %as not sho%ing that the
instant case falls in an) of these,
B4. *ala Investments v C
Dnder )rticle 494 of the %ivil %ode, what debts and obligations contracted by the
husband alone are considered .for the benefit of the con*ugal partnership2 which are
chargeable against the con*ugal partnership; Is a surety agreement or an
accommodation contract entered into by the husband in favor of his employer within
the contemplation of the said provision;
.acts@ "hilippine /looming +ills obtained a "DA,!+ loan from petitioner A)ala
Investment and 5evelopment #orporation, As added securit) for the credit line
e3tended to "/+, respondent Alfredo #hing, 23ecutive Vice "resident of "/+,
e3ecuted securit) agreements making himself ;ointl) and severall) ans%erable %ith
"/+Gs indebtedness to AI5#, "/+ failed to pa) the loan, A)ala sued, and the court
rendered ;udgment ordering "/+ and respondent=husband Alfredo #hing to ;ointl)
and severall) pa) AI5# the principal amount %ith interests,
Spouses filed a case of in;unction against petitioners %ith the court to en;oin the
auction sale alleging that petitioners cannot enforce the ;udgment against the
con;ugal partnership levied on the ground that, among others, the sub;ect loan did not
redound to the benefit of the said con;ugal partnership,
&n 1une :D, 19C:, the auction sale took place, A)ala %on the auction, >&82V27,
the trial court declared the sale on e3ecution null and void, &n appeal to the #A, the
court stated that the debt incurred b) husband #hing did not incur to the benefit of the
con;ugal partnership, hence, it could not be levied upon, A)ala claims that the
provisions of #ivil #ode and the .amil) #ode are different and that ;urisprudence is
on their side,
Page 39 of
51
Issue$ 'id it redound to the benefit of the spouses;
S#@ 8e do not agree %ith petitioners that there is a difference bet%een the terms
Predounded to the benefit ofQ or Pbenefited fromQ on the one handS and Pfor the benefit
ofQ on the other, -he) mean one and the same thing, Article 161 (1$ of the #ivil #ode
and Article 1:1 (:$ of the .amil) #ode are similarl) %orded, i,e,, both use the term Pfor
the benefit of,Q &n the other hand, Article 1:: of the .amil) #ode provides that P-he
pa)ment of personal debts b) the husband or the %ife before or during the marriage
shall not be charged to the con;ugal partnership e3cept insofar as the) redounded to
the benefit of the famil),Q As can be seen, the terms are used interchangeabl),
"etitioners further claim that the husband as head of the famil) and as
administrator of the con;ugal partnership is presumed to have contracted obligations
for the benefit of the famil) or the con;ugal partnership (#obb="ere($, -he) are %rong,
-he court derived the follo%ing rules from ;urisprudence@
a, If the husband himself is the principal obligor in the contract, i,e,, he directl)
received the mone) and services to be used in or for his o%n business or his o%n
profession, that contract falls %ithin the term Pobligations for the benefit of the
con;ugal partnership,Q >ere, no actual benefit ma) be proved, It is enough that the
benefit to the famil) is apparent at the time of the signing of the contract, Simpl)
stated, %here the husband contracts obligations on behalf of the famil) business, the
la% presumes, and rightl) so, that such obligation %ill redound to the benefit of the
con;ugal partnership,
b, If the mone) or services are given to another person or entit), and the husband
acted onl) as a suret) or guarantor, that contract cannot, b) itself, alone be
categori(ed as falling %ithin the conte3t of Pobligations for the benefit of the con;ugal
partnership,Q -he contract of loan or services is clearl) for the benefit of the principal
debtor and not for the suret) or his famil), 0o presumption can be inferred that, %hen
a husband enters into a contract of suret) or accommodation agreement, it is Pfor the
benefit of the con;ugal partnership,Q "roof must be presented to establish benefit
redounding to the con;ugal partnership,
>ere, #hing signed as suret), A)ala should have adduced evidence to prove that
Alfredo #hingGs acting as suret) redounded to the benefit of the con;ugal partnership,
/ut it could be argued that even in such kind of contract of accommodation, a benefit
for the famil) ma) also result, %hen the guarantee is in favor of the husbandGs
emplo)er, >o%ever, these are not the benefits contemplated b) Article 161 of the #ivil
#ode, -he benefits must be one directl) resulting from the loan, It cannot merel) be
a b)=product or a spin=off of the loan itself, -here must be the re4uisite sho%ing 3 3 3
of some advantage %hich clearl) accrued to the %elfare of the spousesQ or Pbenefits
to his famil)Q or Pthat such obligations are productive of some benefit to the famil),Q
Jnfortunatel), the petition did not present an) proof to sho%@ (a$ 8hether or not the
corporate e3istence of "/+ %as prolonged and for ho% man) months or )earsS
and?or (b$ 8hether or not the "/+ %as saved b) the loan and its shares of stock
appreciated, if so, ho% much and ho% substantial %as the holdings of the #hing
famil),
-he #A correctl) applied the provisions of the .amil) #ode to this case, -hese
provisions highlight the underl)ing concern of the la% for the conservation of the
con;ugal partnershipS for the husbandGs dut) to protect and safeguard, if not augment,
not to dissipate it,
-his is the underl)ing reason %h) the .amil) #ode clarifies that the obligations
entered into b) one of the spouses must be those that redounded to the benefit of the
famil) and that the measure of the partnershipGs liabilit) is to Pthe e3tent that the
famil) is benefited,Q
-hese are all in keeping %ith the spirit and intent of the other provisions of the
#ivil #ode %hich prohibits an) of the spouses to donate or conve) gratuitousl) an)
part of the con;ugal propert), -hus, %hen #hing entered into a suret) agreement he,
from then on, definitel) put in peril the con;ugal propert) (in this case, including the
famil) home$ and placed it in danger of being taken gratuitousl) as in cases of
donation,
-he fact that on several occasions the lending institutions did not re4uire the
signature of the %ife and the husband signed alone does not mean that being a
suret) became part of his profession, 0either could he be presumed to have acted
for the con;ugal partnership,
Article 1:1, paragraph !, of the .amil) #ode is emphatic that the pa)ment of
personal debts contracted b) the husband or the %ife before or during the marriage
shall not be charged to the con;ugal partnership e3cept to the e3tent that the)
redounded to the benefit of the famil),
>ere, the propert) in dispute also involves the famil) home, -he loan is a
corporate loan not a personal one, Signing as a suret) is certainl) not an e3ercise of
an industr) or profession nor an act of administration for the benefit of the famil),
B?. Chin8 v. C7 'eb. 4?7 4DD@
'acts. -he "hil, /looming +ills #ompan), Inc, ("/+#I$ obtained a loan of "9+ from
the Allied /anking #orp, (A/#$, /) virtue of the loan, "/+#I e3ecuted a promissor)
note through Alfredo #hing (Alfredo$, its 2V", As added securit), Alfredo, together
%ith : others, e3ecuted a continuing guarant) %ith the A/# binding them to ;ointl)
and severall) guarantee the pa)ment of all "/+#IGs obligations o%ing to A/# to the
e3tent of "!C+, After a )ear, "/+#I contracted another loan %ith A/# for "1!+,
-hereafter, "/+#I defaulted in the pa)ment of its loans, A/# filed a
complaint for sum of mone) %ith pra)er for a %rit of preliminar) attachment against
"/+#I to collect the amounts due to it, impleading as co=defendants Alfredo and the
: others in their capacit) as sureties of "/+#I, -he court granted A/#Gs application
for a %rit of preliminar) attachment, In this regard, the deput) sheriff of the trial court
levied on attachment the 1AA,AAA common shares of #it)corp stocks in the name of
Alfredo,
2ncarnacion #hing (2ncarnacion$, assisted b) Alfredo, her husband, filed a
motion to set aside the lev) on attachment, She alleged that the 1AA,AAA shares of
stocks levied b) the deput) sheriff %ere ac4uired b) her and Alfredo during their
marriage out of con;ugal funds, .urthermore, the indebtedness covered b) the
Page 40 of
51
continuing guarant) contract e3ecuted b) Alfredo for the account of "/+#I did not
redound to the benefit of the con;ugal partnership, *ike%ise, she alleged that being
the %ife of Alfredo, she %as third=part) claimant entitled to file a motion for the release
of the properties, A/# filed a comment alleging mainl) that 2ncarnacion has no
personalit) to file an) motion, not a being a part) to the case, 7-# granted the
motion, lifting the %rit of preliminar) attachment on the shares of stocks, #A reversed
such order, citing the same reasons given b) A/#,
Issue. 8hether or not 2ncarnacion has the right to file the motion to 4uash the lev)
on attachment on shares of stocksL
Held. N2S, In ,ng v. 3ating, #ourt held that the sheriff ma) attach onl) those
properties of the defendant against %hom a %rit of attachment has been issued b) the
court, 8hen the sheriff erroneousl) levies on attachment and sei(es the propert) of a
third person in %hich the said defendant holds no right or interest, the superior
authorit) of the court %hich has authori(ed the e3ecution ma) be invoked b) the
aggrieved third person in the same case,
Art, 16A of the 0e% #ivil #ode (0##$ provides that all properties ac4uired
during the marriage are presumed to belong to the con;ugal partnership, unless it be
proved that it pertains e3clusivel) to the husband or to the %ife, In this case, although
the shares of stocks appeared in the books of #it)corp as belonging onl) to the
husband, the fact that these %ere ac4uired during the marriage makes them
presumabl) con;ugal propert), A/# failed to adduce evidence that Alfredo ac4uired
the stocks %ith his e3clusive mone), >e %ho claims that propert) ac4uired b) the
spouses during their marriage is e3clusive propert) of one of the spouses is burdened
to prove the source of the mone) utili(ed to purchase the same,
In addition, the #ourt held that b) e3ecuting a continuing guarant) and
suret)ship agreement %ith A/# for the pa)ment of "/+#IGs loans, Alfredo %as not in
the e3ercise of his profession, pursuing a legitimate business, -he con;ugal
partnership is not liable for the account of "/+#I under Art, 161 (1$ of the 0## %hich
states@
Art, 161, -he con;ugal partnership shall be liable for@
1$ All debts and obligations contracted b) the husband for the benefit of
the con;ugal partnership, and those contracted b) the %ife, also for the
same purpose, in the cases %here she ma) legall) bind the partnership,
In )yala Investment and 'evelopment %orp. v. %), the #ourt held that the signing as
suret) is certainl) not an e3ercise of an industr) or profession, It is not embarking in a
business, 0o matter ho% often an e3ecutive acted on or %as persuaded to act as
suret) for his o%n emplo)er, this should not be taken to mean that he thereb)
embarked in the business of suret)ship or guarant),
%unoG v. RamireG7 G.R. 9<E94<7 u8ust 4?7 4D9D.
'acts. This case involves a dispute of ownership over a parcel of land between
%unoG and the spouses Erlinda RamireG and Eliseo Carlos.
19C9@ 2liseo #arlos obtained a "1!6,DAA housing loan and constructed a : stor)
residential house over the sub;ect parcel of land, -his %as secured b) a real estate
mortgage over the land,
199!@ -he land %as purportedl) sold to +uno( via deed of absolute sale for the total
consideration of "6A:,AAA, +uno( claims that under the said sale, the spouses %ere
given a chance to repurchase the lot %ithin 1 )ear but the) failed to do so,
-he spouses allege that the deed of sale is void for being falsified because
%hat the) entered into %as a mortgage contract and not a deed of sale, -he) claim
that the) asked +uno( for a loan of "6A:,AAA pesos, +uno( agreed but gave them
":AA,AAA onl) and promised to give the "BA:,AAA after the) cancel the 'SIS
mortgage, -he spouses cancelled the 'SIS mortgage and turned the -#- over to
+uno( but he refused to give the balance, >e also had the -#- of the spouses
cancelled and a ne% one issued for himself depriving the spouses of their propert),
-he spouses claim that the results of an 0/I e3amination sho% that the
signatures of 2liseo on the purported deed of sale are all forgeries,
+uno( claims that even though these signatures are forged, the) %ould be
immaterial because the propert) %as the parphernal propert) of 2rlinda and
therefore, the consent of 2liseo, manifested b) his signature, %as immaterial,
-he #A applied art, 1DC of the CI+I( C$"E7 and ruled that since
improvements %ere made over the parcel of land using con;ugal funds, the parcel of
land %as converted from paraphernal to con;ugal therefore the consent of 2liseo %as
needed in order to validate the sale,
Issue@
8?0 the parcel of land is con;ugalL
8?0 the sale %ith right to repurchase is an e4uitable mortgageL
1, -he land is paraphernal, -he #A erred in appl)ing the #ivil #ode because
%hat properl) applies in this case is art, 1:A of the '%I(, C$"E that
states that if the improvements made %ith con;ugal funds have a higher
value than the paraphernal propert), the paraphernal propert) %ill become
part of the con;ugal partnership sub;ect to reimbursement in favor of the
spouse %ho lost propert), In this case, the house had a value less than the
lot, /ecause of this, the propert) remained parphernal, -he signatures of
2liseo are therefore immaterial,
:, It %as an e4uitable mortgage,
$wnership7 dministration and "isposition of C-FC-G. -resumption of
$wnershipFEffect of Re8istration in name of one of the spouses
%G(($! +. %$!TE/$
Spouses Estonina v. Court of ppeals O :66 S#7A 6: O 1anuar) :, 199
.acts@ A lot %as o%ned b) Santiago 'arcia, %ho has 9 children and a %ife named
#onsuelo 'arcia, Santiago alread) died %hen this controvers) arose,
Page 41 of
51
"etitioners, the spouses 2stonina, filed a case against #onsuelo 'arcia and
%as able to obtain an attachment over the land, 8hile the case %as pending, the 9
children sold their 1?1A share in the lot to Spouses Ata)an, %ho are the respondents
here,
2stonina %ere able to obtain a favorable ;udgment against #onsuelo 'arcia,
-he land %as sold at public auction and a -#- %as issued in the name of 2stonina,
Ata)an ho%ever filed a complaint for annulment of the sheriff sale and the
-#- claiming that the) o%n 9?1A of the land,
-he 7-# said that the land %as presumed to be con;ugal hence #onsuelo
'arcia o%ned DAK of the land plus DK as her share in the intestate estate of her
husband Santiago 'arcia, 7-# ordered the amendment of the -#- to sho% that
2stonina o%ns DDK %hile Ata)an o%ns BDK,
/oth parties appealed,
-he #A modified the ;udgment, -he #A held that lot %as the e3clusive
propert) of Santiago 'arcia and not con;ugal, It held that 2stonina onl) o%ns 1?1A or
1AK and Ata)an o%ns 9?1A or 9AK,
Issue@ Is the propert) e3clusive or con;ugalL 23clusive share of the deceased
Santiago
8hatGs the real share of 2stonina and Ata)anL 1AK and 9AK, respectivel),
7uling@ S# affirms #A in toto,
All propert) of the marriage is presumed to belong to the con;ugal
partnership onl) %hen there is proof that the propert) %as ac4uired during the
marriage, &ther%ise stated, proof of ac4uisition during the marriage is a condition
sine Aua non for the operation of the presumption in favor of the con;ugal partnership,
>ere, 2stonino failed to present an) proof that the propert) %as ac4uired
during the marriage, 2stonino merel) relies on the certificate of title %hich %as issued
during the marriage, -he -#- does not suffice to establish the con;ugal nature of the
propert),
Ac4uisition of propert) and registration of title are t%o different acts,
7egistration does not confer title but merel) confirms one alread) e3isting,
-hus, the propert) is the e3clusive propert) of the deceased Santiago and
%hen he died leaving 1A compulsor) heirs, each one got 1AK of the lot, >ence, %hat
the 2stonino spouses purchased in the public auction %as merel) the rights of
#onsuelo 'arcia consisting of 1AK of the lot,
CRUH + (EIS
'CTS Adriano *eis and 'ertrudes Isidro %ere married on 19 April 19:!,
&n : April 19DD, 'ertrudes ac4uired from the 5A07 a parcel of land in +arikina,
-he 5eed of Sale described 'ertrudes as a %ido%, -hereafter, -#- 0o, B!1AA %as
issued in the name of <'ertrudes Isidro,< %ho %as also referred to therein as a %ido%,
&n : 5ecember 19!, Adriano died,
&n D .ebruar) 19CD, 'ertrudes obtained a loan from petitioners, the spouses #ru(, in
the amount of "1D,AAA,AA at DK interest, pa)able on or before D .ebruar) 19C6, -he
loan %as secured b) a mortgage over the propert),
&n +arch 11 19C6, due to her inabilit) to pa) her outstanding obligation %hen the
debt became due and demandable, 'ertrudes e3ecuted t%o contracts in favor of the
petitioners, -he first is denominated as <Iasunduan,< a pacto de retro sale, granting
'ertrudes one )ear %ithin %hich to repurchase the propert), -he second is a
<Iasunduan ng -u%irang /ilihan,< a 5eed of Absolute Sale covering the same
propert), .or failure of 'ertrudes to repurchase the propert), o%nership thereof %as
consolidated in favor of the petitioners,
&n 9 1une 19C, 'ertrudes Isidro died, -hereafter, her heirs, herein private
respondents, received demands to vacate the premises from petitioners, the ne%
o%ners of the propert), "rivate respondents responded b) filing an action before the
7-# of "asig seeking the nullification of the contracts of sale e3ecuted b) 'ertrudes
Isidro,
-he 7-# ruled in favour of the respondents, It held that the land %as con;ugal
propert), no fraud attended the e3ecution of the contracts, and that the petitioners
failed to compl) %ith the provisions of Article 16A of the #ivil #ode re4uiring a
;udicial order for the consolidation of the o%nership in the vendee a retro to be
recorded in the 7egistr) of "ropert),
-he #A affirmed the decision of the 7-#,
ISSUE 8?0 the petitioners ac4uired o%nership over the landL
HE(" It is conceded that, as a rule, a co=o%ner such as 'ertrudes could onl) dispose
of her share in the propert) o%ned in common,
Jnfortunatel) for private respondents, ho%ever, the propert) %as registered solel) in
the name of <'ertrudes Isidro, %ido%,< 8here a parcel of land, forming part of the
undistributed properties of the dissolved con;ugal partnership of gains, is sold b) a
%ido% to a purchaser %ho merel) relied on the face of the certificate of title thereto,
issued solel) in the name of the %ido%, the purchaser ac4uires a valid title to the land
even as against the heirs of the deceased spouse, -he rationale for this rule is that <a
person dealing %ith registered land is not re4uired to go behind the register to
determine the condition of the propert), >e is onl) charged %ith notice of the burdens
on the propert) %hich are noted on the face of the register or the certificate of title, -o
re4uire him to do more is to defeat one of the primar) ob;ects of the -orrens s)stem,<
It bears stressing that not%ithstanding Article 16A, the recording in the 7egistr) of
"ropert) of the consolidation of o%nership of the vendee is not a condition sine Aua
non to the transfer of o%nership, "etitioners are the o%ners of the sub;ect propert)
since neither 'ertrudes nor her co=o%ners redeemed the same %ithin the one=)ear
period stipulated in the <Iasunduan,< -he essence of a pacto de retro sale is that title
and o%nership of the propert) sold are immediatel) vested in the vendee a retro,
sub;ect to the resolutor) condition of repurchase b) the vendor a retro %ithin the
stipulated period, .ailure thus of the vendor a retro to perform said resolutor)
condition vests upon the vendee b) operation of la% absolute title and o%nership over
the propert) sold, As title is alread) vested in the vendee a retro, his failure to
consolidate his title under Article 16A of the #ivil #ode does not impair such title or
Page 42 of
51
o%nership for the method prescribed thereunder is merel) for the purpose of
registering the consolidated title,
nno v. nno
G.R. !o. 9E?B@? ;@AD SCR @95=
'acts. "etitioner 5olores "intiano=Anno (5olores$ and respondent Albert Anno
(Albert$ %ere married in 196!, 5olores claims that during their marriage, the)
ac4uired a B=hectare agricultural land in *a -rinidad, /enguet, In 19B, the land %as
declared for ta3 purposes solel) in the name of her husband, respondent Albert,
5olores further claims that %ithout her kno%ledge, Albert e3ecuted t%o documents of
transfer covering the sub;ect land@ 1$ Affidavit of 8aiver %here Albert %aived and
4uitclaimed in favor of 5oloresG first cousin, respondent "atenio Suanding, his rights
over a portion of the landS :$ 5eed of sale %here Albert conve)ed to Suanding the
remainder of the land more than a )ear later, In both documents, Albert declared that
he is the la%ful o%ner and possessor of the land, -hus, the documents of transfer did
not bear the signature and %ritten consent of 5olores as the %ife of the vendor, -he
land %as transferred b) Suanding to third persons, +)rna 0a(arro and Silardo
/ested,
5olores filed a case against Albert and Suanding for #ancellation of the 8aiver of
7ights, 5eed of Sale and -ransfer -a3 5eclarations, and 5amages, She alleged the
land belongs to their con;ugal partnership and thus could not have been validl)
conve)ed b) Albert to Suanding %ithout her %ritten consent as spouse, Suanding
testified that Albert represented to him that the land %as his e3clusive propert) as the
land %as part of his inheritance and he had been in possession thereof prior to his
marriage to petitioner,
+-# ruled in favor of 5olores, 7-# reversed the +-#, #A affirmed the 7-#,
Issue. %hether the sub;ect land belongs to the con;ugal partnership of gains of
spouses Anno and thus cannot be validl) conve)ed b) one spouse %ithout the
consent of the other,
Held and Ratio. *and belongs to Albert not to the con;ugal partnership of gains of the
spouses,
All propert) of the marriage is presumed to be con;ugal in nature, >o%ever, for this
presumption to appl), the part) %ho invokes it must first prove that the propert) %as
ac4uired during the marriage, "roof of ac4uisition during the coverture is a condition
sine Aua non to the operation of the presumption in favor of the con;ugal
partnership,

>o%ever, a careful e3amination of the records sho%s that 5oloresG
evidence (their marriage contract and the initial 19B ta3 declaration over the
propert)$ failed to prove that the sub;ect land belongs to their con;ugal partnership,
+oreover, since it is 5oloresG allegation that the land belongs to their con;ugal
partnership of gains, then she has the burden of proof to substantiate, b)
preponderance of evidence, that the land %as con;ugal in nature, -his she failed to do
(i,e, 5olores failed to identif) %hen she and Albert, first occupied and possessed the
land$, 8hile the initial ta3 declaration she presented %as dated 19B, it cannot be
automaticall) deduced therefrom that occupation of the sub;ect land %as like%ise
done in the same )ear, -o so conclude %ill amount to speculation or con;ecture on the
part of the court, 5eclaration of a land for ta3ation purposes cannot be e4uated %ith
its ac4uisition for, in the ordinar) course of things, occupation of a piece of land
usuall) comes prior to the act of declaring it for ta3 purposes, +ore importantl), the
19B ta3 declaration presented b) 5olores cannot be made a basis to prove its
con;ugal nature as the land %as declared for ta3 purposes solel) in the name of her
husband, Albert, %ho sold the land as his e3clusive propert), -a3 declarations,
especiall) of untitled lands, are credible proof of claim of o%nership

and are
good indicia of possession in the concept of an o%ner,

Since the circumstances do not sho% %hen the propert) %as ac4uired b) spouses
Anno, the presumption of the con;ugal nature of the propert) allegedl) ac4uired b)
the spouses Anno during the subsistence of their marriage cannot be
applied, #onse4uentl), the land is the e3clusive propert) of Albert %hich he could
validl) dispose of %ithout the consent of his %ife,
SoleFTransfer of dministration
RE,ES v. (E/!"R$ ;RE. -ETITI$! '$R "EC(RTI$! $' 2SE!CE=
9@9 SCR E<7 G.R. !o. (C?4D4E. /anuar* 9E7 95AE.
'octrine$ It is not necessary that a declaration of absence be made in a proceeding
separate from and prior to a petition for administration
'CTS. &n &ctober :D, 1969, 2rlinda 7e)noso 7e)es filed a petition pra)ing for the
declaration of her husband, 7oberto *, 7e)es, as an absentee,
2rlinda and 7oberto %ere married on +arch :, 196A, In April 196:, 7oberto left due to
a misunderstanding, and 2rlinda alleges that@ (1$ she has not heard from him sinceS
(:$ the) have not ac4uired propert) during the marriageS (!$ the) have no outstanding
obligationsS and (B$ her purpose for filing the petition is to establish the absence of
7oberto,
She invokes Article !CB of the #ivil #ode and 7ule 1A of the 0e% 7ules of #ourt,
-he lo%er court dismissed the petition because 7oberto left no properties, stating that
the sole purpose for the declaration of absence is to enable the taking of necessar)
precautions for the administration of the estate of absentee,
ISSUE. 8?0 a ;udicial declaration of absence is proper %hen the absentee spouse
left no properties O 0&,
RTI$. -he need to have a person ;udiciall) declared an absentee is@ (1$ %hen he
has properties %hich have to be taken care of or administered b) a #ourt=appointed
representativeS (:$ the spouse present is seeking a separation of propert), or the
spouse is asking that the administration of the con;ugal propert) be transferred to her,
-he petition to declare the husband an absentee and the petition to place the
Page 43 of
51
management of the con;ugal propert) in the hands of the %ife ma) be combined and
heard in the same proceeding,
U* v. C
Topic under /oint dministrationK SoleFTransfer of dministration
"octrine. Incapacitated spouse warrants /udicial Guardianship under Rules of
Court7 not under the 'amil* Code.
.acts@ 2rnesto 1ardele(a suffered stroke, so his son -eodoro filed a petition for
guardianship of his father, Son averred that there %as a need for a court=appointed
guardian to save his fatherGs properties and assets, and further added that in the
meantime, no properties shall be alienated or mortgaged to third persons,
2rnestoGs %ife then filed petition declaring 2rnestoGs incapacit) and assumption of
po%ers as sole administrator of con;ugal properties, and pra)ed to #ourt that she be
granted permission to dispose of a land for the medical e3penses of her husband,
#ourt granted,
-eodoro opposed, sa)ing that such assumption as sole admin is in effect a petition for
guardianship over person and properties of 2rnesto, and should be covered b)
Special "roceedings under the 7&#, Also, 2rnesto alread) ac4uired vested rights as
a con;ugal partner and thus cannot be impaired %ithout consent, >e also averred that
the #"' has sufficient assets to cover the medical e3pensesH 0onetheless, 2rnestoGs
%ife still sold land to her daughter 'lenda J), -# affirms, but #A reverses, ordering
sale of land void,
Issue@ #omatose condition of husband %arrants the assuming of sole po%er of
administration over properties and dispose of land %ith court approvalL
>eld@ "etition denied,
7atio@ the condition of her husband makes the 7ule on Art, 1:B of ## inapplicable
(covers onl) absence, separation in fact, abandonment, or %ithheld consent$, And so
7ule 9! of the 7ules of #ourt 196B applies, as this covers a non=consenting spouse
due to incapacit) or incompetence to give consent,
As such, ernestoGs %ife should observe procedure for sale of %ardGs estate re4uired of
;udicial guardians under the 7ules of #ourt, not the summar) proceedings under the
.amil) #ode, In the case at bar, 7-# failed to compl) %ith procedures of the 7&#,
and even .# (no notice to incapacitated spouse and to sho% cause %h) petition
should not be granted$,
"ispositionsF"onations
SI$CHI +. G$H$!
.acts@ -his case involves a !A,AAA SU,+, parcel of land (propert)$registered in the
name of the Spouses 'o(on,
2lvira filed %ith #avite 7-# a petition for legal separation against her
husband Alfredo, 2lvira filed a notice of lis pendens, %hile the legal separation case
%as still pending, +ean%hile, Alfredo and +ario Siochi (+ario$ entered into an
Agreement to /u) and Sell involving the propert) for the price of "1C million, -he)
stipulated that Alfredo %as to remove the notice of lis pendens on the title, to have the
land e3cluded from the legal separation case and to secure an affidavit from the %ife
2lvira that the propert) %as the e3clusive propert) of Alfredo,
>o%ever, despite repeated demands from +ario, Alfredo failed to compl)
%ith these stipulations, After pa)ing the "D million earnest mone) as partial pa)ment
of the purchase price, +ario took possession of the propert) in September 199!,
+ean%hile, the courts declared the 'o(on spouses legall) separated, As
regards the propert), the 7-# declared it con;ugal, Alfredo also e3ecuted a deed of
donation over the said propert) in favour of their daughter 8inifred %ithout annotating
the notice of lis pendens, Alfredo, b) virtue of a Special "o%er of Attorne) e3ecuted in
his favor b) 8inifred, sold the propert) to Inter=5imensional 7ealt), Inc, (I57I$ for "1C
million,
+ario then filed %ith the +alabon 7-# a complaint for Specific "erformance
and 5amages, Annulment of 5onation and Sale, %ith "reliminar) +andator) and
"rohibitor) In;unction and?or -emporar) 7estraining &rder, 7-# ruled in favour of
+ario, #A affirmed, +ario appealed, contending that the Agreement should be treated
as a continuing offer %hich ma) be perfected b) the acceptance of the other spouse
before the offer is %ithdra%n, Since 2lviraGs conduct signified her ac4uiescence to the
sale, +ario pra)s for the #ourt to direct Alfredo and 2lvira to e3ecute a 5eed of
Absolute Sale over the propert) upon his pa)ment of "9 million to 2lvira,
I57I alleges that it is a bu)er in good faith and for value,
ISSJ2 #ould Alfredo ?dispose alienate the propert)L 0&,
8as AlfredoGs share in the con;ugal propert) alread) forfeited in favour of
their daughter b) virtue of the decree of legal separationL 0&,
>2*5 -his case involves the con;ugal propert) of Alfredo and 2lvira, Since the
disposition of the propert) occurred after the effectivit) of the .amil) #ode, the
applicable la% is the .amil) #ode,
In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or other%ise unable to
participate in the administration of the con;ugal properties, the other spouse ma)
assume sole po%ers of administration, -hese po%ers do not include the po%ers of
disposition or encumbrance %hich must have the authorit) of the court or the %ritten
consent of the other spouse, In the absence of such authorit) or consent, the
disposition or encumbrance shall be void, >o%ever, the transaction shall be
construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third
person, and ma) be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance b) the other
spouse or authori(ation b) the court before the offer is %ithdra%n b) either or both
offerors,
In this case, Alfredo %as the sole administrator of the propert) because
2lvira, %ith %hom Alfredo %as separated in fact, %as unable to participate in the
administration of the con;ugal propert), >o%ever, as sole administrator of the
propert), Alfredo still cannot sell the propert) %ithout the %ritten consent of 2lvira or
the authorit) of the court, 8ithout such consent or authorit), the sale is void, -he
absence of the consent of one of the spouse renders the entire sale void, including
the portion of the con;ugal propert) pertaining to the spouse %ho contracted the sale,
2ven if the other spouse activel) participated in negotiating for the sale of the
Page 44 of
51
propert), that other spouseGs %ritten consent to the sale is still re4uired b) la% for its
validit), -he Agreement entered into b) Alfredo and +ario %as %ithout the %ritten
consent of 2lvira, -hus, the Agreement is entirel) void,
As regards +arioGs contention that the Agreement is a continuing offer %hich
ma) be perfected b) 2lviraGs acceptance before the offer is %ithdra%n, the fact that
the propert) %as subse4uentl) donated b) Alfredo to 8inifred and then sold to I57I
clearl) indicates that the offer %as alread) %ithdra%n,
8e disagree %ith the #A %hen it held that the Z share of Alfredo in the
con;ugal partnership %as alread) forfeited in favour of the daughter, Among the
effects of the decree of legal separation is that the con;ugal partnership is dissolved
and li4uidated and the offending spouse %ould have no right to an) share of the net
profits earned b) the con;ugal partnership, It is onl) AlfredoGs share in the net profits
%hich is forfeited in favor of 8inifred, #learl), %hat is forfeited in favor of 8inifred is
not AlfredoGs share in the con;ugal partnership propert) but merel) in the net profits of
the con;ugal partnership propert),
8ith regard to I57I, %e agree %ith the #ourt of Appeals in holding that I57I
is not a bu)er in good faith, As found b) the 7-# +alabon and the #ourt of Appeals,
I57I had actual kno%ledge of facts and circumstances %hich should impel a
reasonabl) cautious person to make further in4uiries about the vendorGs title to the
propert),
'uentes v. Roca
'acts. Sabina -arro(a o%ned a titled !DC=s4uare meter lot in #anelar,
Mamboanga#it), In 19C:, she sold it to her son, -arciano -, 7oca (-arciano$ under a
deed of absolute sale, /ut -arciano did not for the meantime have the registered title
transferred to his name, In 19CC, -arciano offered to sell the lot to petitioners +anuel
and *eticia .uentes (the .uentes spouses$, -he) later signed an agreement to sell
prepared b) one Att), "lagata dated April :9, 19CC, %hich agreement e3pressl) stated
that it %as to take effect in si3 months,
-he agreement re4uired the .uentes spouses to pa) -arciano a do%n
pa)ment of "6A,AAA,AA for the transfer of the lotGs title to him, And, %ithin si3 months,
-arciano %as to clear the lot of structures and occupants and secure the consent of
his estranged %ife, 7osario 'abriel 7oca (7osario$, to the sale, Jpon -arcianoGs
compliance %ith these conditions, the .uentes spouses %ere to take possession of
the lot and pa) him an additional "1BA,AAA,AA or"16A,AAA,AA, depending on %hether
or not he succeeded in demolishing the house standing on it, If -arciano %as unable
to compl) %ith these conditions, the .uentes spouses %ould become o%ners of the
lot %ithout an) further formalit) and pa)ment,
As soon as -arciano met the other conditions, Att), "lagata
notari(ed 7osarioGs affidavit in Mamboanga #it), &n 1anuar) 11, 19C9 -arciano
e3ecuted a deed of absolute sale in favor of the .uentes spouses, -he) then paid
him the additional "1BA,AAA,AA mentioned in their agreement, A ne% title %as issued
in the name of the spouses %ho immediatel) constructed a building on the
lot, &n 1anuar) :C, 199A -arciano passed a%a), follo%ed b) his %ife 7osario %ho
died nine months after%ards,
2ight )ears later, the children of -arciano and 7osario filed an action for
annulment of sale and reconve)ance of the land against the .uentes spouses %ith
the 7-#= Mamboanga #it), -he 7ocas claimed that the sale to the spouses %as void
since -arcianoGs %ife, 7osario, did not give her consent to it, >er signature on the
affidavit of consent had been forged, -he) thus pra)ed that the propert) be
reconve)ed to them upon reimbursement of the price that the .uentes spouses paid
-arciano,
7-# dimissed the action, #A reversed, >ence, this petition,
Issue. 8hether or not the 7ocasG action for the declaration of nullit) of that sale to
the spouses alread) prescribed
Held. 0o, the action has not )et prescribed,
#ontrar) to the ruling of the #ourt of Appeals, the la% that applies to this
case is the .amil) #ode, not the #ivil #ode, Although -arciano and 7osario got
married in 19DA, -arciano sold the con;ugal propert) to the .uentes spouses
on 1anuar) 11, 19C9, a fe% months after the .amil) #ode took effect on August !,
19CC,
Article 1:B of the .amil) #ode does not provide a period %ithin %hich the
%ife %ho gave no consent ma) assail her husbandGs sale of the real propert), It
simpl) provides that %ithout the other spouseGs %ritten consent or a court order
allo%ing the sale, the same %ould be void, Jnder the provisions of the #ivil #ode
governing contracts, a void or ine3istent contract has no force and effect from the
ver) beginning, And this rule applies to contracts that are declared void b) positive
provision of la%, as in the case of a sale of con;ugal propert) %ithout the other
spouseGs %ritten consent, A void contract is e4uivalent to nothing and is absolutel)
%anting in civil effects, It cannot be validated either b) ratification or prescription,
>ere, the 7ocas filed an action against the .uentes spouses in 199 for
annulment of sale and reconve)ance of the real propert) that -arciano sold %ithout
their motherGs (his %ifeGs$ %ritten consent, -he passage of time did not erode the right
to bring such an action,
$wnership7 dministration and "isposition of SeparateFE)clusive -roperties
%anotoc Realt* Inc. v. C
.A#-S@ .elipe +adlanga%a had been occup)ing a part of the land o%ned b) #lara
-ambunting as the latterGs paraphernal propert), %ith the understanding that he %ould
eventuall) bu) the lot, #lara died and her estate %as placed under custodia legis,
.elipe then made a do%npa)ment to the husband of #lara, Vicente *egarda, as part
of the purchase price of the propert) he occupied, Around ! months later, the court
appointed Vicente as a special administrator of the estate,
ISSJ2@ 8&0 the sale b) Vicente to .elipe %as valid,
>2*5@ 0&, Jnder Arts, 1!6=1! of the old ##, the %ife retains o%nership of
paraphernal propert), and the onl) %a) that the husband shall have administration
Page 45 of
51
over it is if the %ife delivers the same to the husband b) means of a public instrument,
recorded in the 7egistr) of "ropert), empo%ering the latter to administer such
propert), -here is nothing in the records that %ill sho% that Vicente %as the
administrator of the paraphernal properties of #lara during the lifetime of the latter,
-hus, it cannot be said that the sale %hich %as entered into b) .elipe and Vicente
had its inception before the death of #lara and %as entered into b) the former for and
on behalf of the latter, but %as onl) consummated after her death, Vicente, therefore,
could not have validl) disposed of the lot in dispute as a continuing administrator of
the paraphernal properties of #lara,
It is also undisputed that the probate court appointed Vicente as administrator of the
estate onl) ! months after the sale had taken place, -he inevitable conclusion is,
therefore, that the sale bet%een Vicente and .elipe is void ab initio, the former being
neither an o%ner nor administrator of the sub;ect propert),
"ursuant to Sec, 1, 7ule C9 of the 7ules of #ourt, after the appointment of Vicente as
administrator of the estate of #lara, he should have applied before the probate court
for authorit) to sell the disputed propert) in favor of .elipe, If the probate court
approved the re4uest, then Vicente %ould have been able to e3ecute a valid deed of
sale in favor of the .elipe, Jnfortunatel), there %as no effort on the part of the
administrator to compl) %ith the above=4uoted rule of procedure, nor on that of .elipe
to protect his interests,
"issolution of C-FC-G. Grounds
A< -artosaC>o v C..
'CTS. 1ose 1o admits to cohabiting %ith ! %omen and fathering 1D children, (%o%$
"rima 1o is allegedl) the legal %ife %ho has a daughter named +onina, "rima filed for
separation of con;ugal propert) and support, -he -# ruled in favor of "rima in the
support case but failed to render a decision on the separation of propert), 1ose
appealed, #A affirmed support but dismissed the separation of propert) for lack of a
cause of action and on the ground that separation b) agreement %as not covered b)
Article 1C of the #ivil #ode,
ISSUE. 5id the #A err in sa)ing that (1$ the ;udicial separation of con;ugal propert)
sought %as not allo%ed under Articles 1D, 1C and 191 of the #ivil #ode and (:$ no
such separation %as decreed b) the -#= 1ose sa)s since the -# decision became
final sorr) nalang si "rima
HE(". -he #ourt decided (:$ first so even if 1ose is correct in sa)ing that the
decision of the -# failed to state the separation the #ourt canGt let technicalit) prevail
over substantive issues so the #ourt ma) clarif) such an ambiguit) b) an amendment
even after the ;udgment have become final,
&n (1$ =-he #A dismissed the complaint on the ground that the separation of the
parties %as due to their agreement and not because of abandonment, It held that an
agreement to live separatel) %ithout ;ust cause %as void under Article ::1 of the #ivil
#ode and could not sustain an) claim of abandonment b) the aggrieved spouse, Its
conclusion %as that the onl) remed) available to her %as legal separation %hich %ill
result in the termination of the con;ugal partnership,
"rima contends that #A misinterpreted Articles 1D, 1C and 191 of the #ivil
#ode, She sa)s that the agreement %as for her to temporaril) live %ith her parents
during the initial period of her pregnanc) and for him to visit and support her, -he)
never agreed to separate permanentl), And even if the) did, this arrangement ended
in 19B:, %hen she returned to him and he refused to accept her,
Art, 1:C %hich superseded Art, 1C states that the aggrieved spouse ma) petition for
;udicial separation on either of these grounds@
1, Abandonment b) a spouse of the other %ithout ;ust causeS and
:, .ailure of one spouse to compl) %ith his or her obligations to the
famil) %ithout ;ust cause, even if she said spouse does not leave
the other spouse,
Abandonment implies a departure b) one spouse %ith the intent never to return,
follo%ed b) prolonged absence %ithout ;ust cause, and %ithout providing for one's
famil) although able to do so, -he acts of 1ose in den)ing entr) to the con;ugal home
to his %ife as earl) as 19B: and consistentl) refusing to give support from 196C
constitutes abandonment,
Since 1ose had abandoned her and their child she is entitled to ask for the dissolution
of their propert) regime, 1ose used a dumm) to keep the properties from "rima but
the #ourt said that these properties that should no% be divided bet%een them, on the
assumption that the) %ere ac4uired during coverture and so belong to the spouses
half and half, -he division must include such properties properl) belonging to the
con;ugal partnership as ma) have been registered in the name of other persons in
violation of the Anti=5umm) *a%,
Separation with "issolution 3 Effects
AE. T$" v. C
1acts$
/enigno -oda and 7ose +arie -uason %ere married in 19D1 and %ere married and
blessed %ith : children, /ut because of individual differences and the alleged
infidelit) of /enigno, 7ose +arie filed a petition for termination of con;ugal partnership
for alleged mismanagement and dissipation of con;ugal funds,
-o avoid further disagreeable proceedings, the parties filed a ;oint petition for ;udicial
approval of dissolution of con;ugal partnership under Art, 191 of the ##, -his petition
embodied a compromise agreement allocating to the spouses their respective shares
in the con;ugal partnership assets and dismissing %ith pre;udice the civil case filed b)
7ose +arie, -he compromise agreement %as incorporated in the petition for
dissolution, %hich %as approved b) the court,
Ironicall), the said agreement failed to full) subserve the intended amicable
settlement of all the disputes, Instead of terminating a litigation, it spa%ned t%o ne%
petitions, -he parties are no% arguing on the a%ard of cash dividends, %hich
depends on the date of the effectivit) of the compromise agreement, 7ose +arie said
that it became effective onl) after ;udicial approval and not upon its e3ecution,
Page 46 of
51
Issue$ 8hether the compromise agreement became effective onl) after ;udicial
approval = N2S
Ratio$
Jnder Art, 19A of the ##, in the absence of an e3press declaration in the marriage
settlements, the separation of propert) bet%een spouses during the marriage shall
not take place save in virtue of a ;udicial order, >ence, the separation of propert) is
not effected b) the mere e3ecution of the contract or agreement of the parties, but b)
the decree of the court approving the same, .urthermore, Art, 19: e3plicitl) provides
that the con;ugal partnership is dissolved onl) upon the issuance of a decree of
separation of propert),
,ther issue$ /enigno deducted "!6Ak from the ":+ supposed to be paid to 7ose
+arie, It is not clear from the records %here it came from, -he #A presumed it to be
in the nature of cash dividends declared prior to the approval of the compromise
agreement and held that it is con;ugal and therefore, belongs to /enigno, 8hile no
sufficient proof %as adduced to conclusivel) e3plain such deduction, there e3ists the
legal presumption that all propert) of the marriage belongs to the con;ugal partnership
absent an) proof that it is the e3clusive propert) of either spouse, Since 7ose +arie
failed to prove that the amount forms pat of the paraphernal propert), it is presumed
to be con;ugal propert),
(i1uidation of C-FC-G ssets and (iabilities. Two or more marria8es
"ael v. IC
.acts@
#abutihan married /ienvenida 5urana, their marriage produced D children
*ess than a )ear after /ienvenidaGs death, #abutihan married Vitorina
5urana, the sister of his first %ife (no kids$
#esario #abutihan died
D )ears later, Victorina died as %ell
-he brother and sister of Victorina are claiming :?! of the estate, %hile the
mother of /ienvenida and the other sister of Victorina are claiming 1?!
Issue@ >o% should the estate of Victorina be partitionedL
>eld@
8hen /ienvenida died, the first con;ugal partnership %as automaticall)
dissolved, -hat con;ugal partnership %as then converted into an implied ordinar) co=
o%nership, It %as also at this point of time that the inheritance %as transmitted to the
heirs of /ienvenida (D children$, -he heirs %ill receive Z of the con;ugal partnership
propert) %hich pertained to /inevenida, -he other half belongs to #esario,
5ue to the marriage of #esario and Victorina, the fruits and income of
#esarioGs share in the inheritance from /ienvenida and of his con;ugal share in the
propert) of the first con;ugal partnership %ould form part of the con;ugal partnership of
properties of he second marriage, -he fruits and income derived or ac4uired through
these properties %ould also be con;ugal in nature,
-he problem is ho% to apportion the properties involved bet%een the t%o
con;ugal partnerships, According to the #ivil #ode, %henever the li4uidation of the
partnership of : or more marriages contracted b) the same person should be carried
out at the same time and there is no evidence to sho% the capital or the con;ugal
propert) belonging to each of the partnerships to be li4uidated, the total mass of the
partnership propert) shall be divided bet%een the different partnerships in proportion
to the duration of each and to the propert) belonging to the respective spouses,
-ropert* Relations of Union without %arria8e. Either not Capacitated to marr*
or not livin8 to8ether e)clusivel*
TU%($S +. TU%($S
Homeowners 2an: v. %i8uela "ailo
'acts. +iguela #, 5ailo and +arcelino 5ailo, 1r, %ere married on August C, 196,
5uring their marriage, the) purchased a house and lot situated at /aranga) San
.rancisco, San "ablo #it), -he 5eed of Absolute Sale, ho%ever, %as e3ecuted onl) in
favor of the late +arcelino 5ailo, 1r, as vendee thereof to the e3clusion of his %ife,
+iguel,
&n 5ecember 1, 199!, +arcelino 5ailo, 1r, e3ecuted a Special "o%er of Attorne)
(S"A$ in favor of one *ilibeth 'esmundo, authori(ing her to obtain a loan from
>omeo%ners Savings and *oan /ank to be secured b) the spouses 5ailo's house
and lot in San "ablo #it), "ursuant to the S"A, 'esmundo obtained a loan in the
amount of "!AA,AAA,AA from >omeo%ners, -he house and lot served as the securit)
for the 7eal 2state +ortgage, +iguela had no kno%ledge of the S"A and of the 72+,
-he loan %as not paid and the house and e3tra;udicial foreclosure proceedings
follo%ed, At the sale, >omeo%ners ended up being the highest bidder, A certificate of
sale %as issued to >omeo%ners, A )ear passed and the propert) %asnGt redeemed so
>omeo%ners consolidated the o%nership thereof b) e3ecuting on 1une 6, 1996 an
Affidavit of #onsolidation of &%nership and a 5eed of Absolute Sale,
+arcelino died on 5ecember :A, 199D, In one of her visits to the sub;ect propert),
+iguela learned that >omeo%ners had alread) emplo)ed a certain 7oldan /rion to
clean its premises and that her .ord sedan %as ra(ed because /rion allo%ed a bo) to
pla) %ith fire in the compound
#laiming that she had no kno%ledge of the mortgage constituted on the sub;ect
propert), %hich %as con;ugal in nature, +iguela filed a case %ith the 7-# for
declaration of nullit) of the mortgage and its subse4uent sale, and for reconve)ance,
-he 7-# nullified the mortgage and the sale, It also instructed >omeo%ners to pa)
+iguela BA,AAA for her .ord Sedan,
-he #A affirmed,
Issues. 1, 8&0 the mortgage constituted b) +arcelino on the sub;ect propert) as co=
o%ner is valid as to his undivided share,
:, 8&0 the con;ugal partnership is liable for the pa)ment of the loan, because it
redounded to the benefit of the famil),
Page 47 of
51
Held. 1, 0&H #o=o%nership doesnGt even appl) here, 8ithout the other spouseGs
consent an) disposition or encumbrance of the con;ugal propert) shall be void,
:, 0&H -his assertion %asnGt proven,
Ratio. 1, In 0uiang v. %ourt of )ppeals it %as held that the sale of a con;ugal propert)
re4uires the consent of both the husband and %ife, In appl)ing Article 1:B of the
.amil) #ode, this #ourt declared that the absence of the consent of one renders the
entire sale null and void, including the portion of the con;ugal propert) pertaining to
the husband %ho contracted the sale, -he same principle in 0uiang s4uarel) applies
to the instant case, -here is no legal basis to construe Article B9! (co=o%nership
provision$ of the #ivil #ode as an e3ception to Article 1:B of the .amil) #ode,
+iguela and the late +arcelino %ere married on August C, 196, In the absence of a
marriage settlement, the s)stem of relative communit) or con;ugal partnership of
gains governed the propert) relations bet%een respondent and her late husband,
8ith the effectivit) of the .amil) #ode on August !, 19CC, #hapter B on %on*ugal
#artnership of 0ains in the .amil) #ode %as made applicable to con;ugal partnership
of gains alread) established before its effectivit) unless vested rights have alread)
been ac4uired under the #ivil #ode or other la%s,
-he rules on co=o%nership do not even appl) to the propert) relations of +iguela and
+arcelino even in a suppletor) manner, -he regime of con;ugal partnership of gains is
a special t)pe of partnership, %here the husband and %ife place in a common fund
the proceeds, products, fruits and income from their separate properties and those
ac4uired b) either or both spouses through their efforts or b) chance, Jnlike the
absolute communit) of propert) %herein the rules on co=o%nership appl) in a
suppletor) manner, the con;ugal partnership shall be governed b) the rules on
contract of partnership in all that is not in conflict %ith %hat is e3pressl) determined in
the chapter (on con;ugal partnership of gains$ or b) the spouses in their marriage
settlements, -hus, the propert) relations of respondent and her late husband shall be
governed, foremost, b) #hapter B on %on*ugal #artnership of 0ains of the .amil)
#ode and, suppletoril), b) the rules on partnership under the #ivil #ode, In case of
conflict, the former prevails because the #ivil #ode provisions on partnership appl)
onl) %hen the .amil) #ode is silent on the matter,
-he basic and established fact is that during his lifetime, %ithout the kno%ledge and
consent of his %ife, +arcelino 5ailo, 1r, constituted a real estate mortgage on the
sub;ect propert), %hich formed part of their con;ugal partnership, /) e3press provision
of Article 1:B of the .amil) #ode, in the absence of (court$ authorit) or %ritten
consent of the other spouse, an) disposition or encumbrance of the con;ugal propert)
shall be void,
:, Jnder Article 1:1 of the .amil) #ode, 'E-Fhe con;ugal partnership shall be liable for@
, , , (!$ 5ebts and obligations contracted b) either spouse %ithout the consent of the
other to the e3tent that the famil) ma) have been benefitedS , , , , .or the sub;ect
propert) to be held liable, the obligation contracted b) the late +arcelino 5ailo, 1r,
must have redounded to the benefit of the con;ugal partnership, -he burden of proof
that the debt %as contracted for the benefit of the con;ugal partnership of gains lies
%ith the creditor=part) litigant claiming as such, >omeo%ner's s%eeping conclusion
that the loan obtained b) the late +arcelino 5ailo, 1r, to finance the construction of
housing units %ithout a doubt redounded to the benefit of his famil), %ithout adducing
ade4uate proof, does not persuade this #ourt, &ther than petitioner's bare allegation,
there is nothing from the records of the case to compel a finding that, indeed, the loan
obtained b) the late +arcelino 5ailo, 1r, redounded to the benefit of the famil),
#onse4uentl), the con;ugal partnership cannot be held liable for the pa)ment of the
principal obligation,
bin8 vs. Wae*an
'acts. "etitioner 1ohn Abing and respondent 1uliet 8ae)an cohabited as husband
and %ife %ithout the benefit of marriage, -ogether, the) bought a :=store) residential
house, *ater on, 1uliet left for overseas emplo)ment in Iorea, 8hile there, she %ould
still send mone) to 1ohn %ho deposited the same in their ;oint account
In 199:, the original :=store) residential house under%ent renovation, -o it
%as anne3ed a ne% structure %hich housed a sari>sari store,
In 199D, she %ent back from Iorea and lived %ith 1ohn, She also managed
the sari=sari store,
>o%ever, their relationship did not last, -he) decided to partition their
properties, In the +emorandum of Agreement, the) both settled that %hile 1ohn
should leave his share of the properties, 1uliet should pa) him the amount of
"B:C,CA,AA %hich she failed to pa) full), >ence, 1ohn demanded that 1uliet vacate
the anne3 structure, 8hen she refused, 1ohn instituted an e;ectment case, -he t%o
lo%er courts ruled in favor of the petitioner, sa)ing that the construction of the said
structure solel) came from his e3clusive funds, &n appeal, the #ourt of Appeals
decided on the contrar) stating that the propert) is o%ned in common b) both of
them,
Issue. 8hether or not the propert) sub;ect of the suit pertains to the e3clusive
o%nership of petitioner, 1ohn,
Rulin8. 0o, Art 1B of the .amil) #ode reads@
Ehen a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry
each other, live e:clusively with each other as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their
wages and salaries shall be owned by them in eAual shares and
the property acAuired by both of them through their work or industry
shall be governed by the rules on co>ownership.
In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acAuired
while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained
by their *oint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them
in eAual shares. 1or purposes of this )rticle, a party who did not
participate in the acAuisition by other party of any property shall be
deemed to have contributed *ointly in the acAuisition thereof if the
Page 48 of
51
formerFs efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family
and of the household.
-he la% is clear, In the absence, as here, of proofs to the contrar), an)
propert) ac4uired b) common=la% spouses during their period of cohabitation is
presumed to have been obtained thru their ;oint efforts and is o%ned b) them in e4ual
shares, -heir propert) relationship is governed b) the rules on co=o%nership, And
under this regime, the) o%ned their properties in common Pin e4ual shares,Q
1ohn and 1uliet lived together as husband and %ife from 19C6 to 199D
%ithout the benefit of marriage, and it %as %ithin this period that the) ac4uired the
propert) and constructed the anne3 structure,
In the instant case, petitioner failed to prove that the propert) came from his
e3clusive funds, >ence, the propert) is o%ned b) the parties in common, /eing co=
o%ner of the structure in 4uestion, 1uliet, as correctl) ruled b) the #A, ma) not be
e;ected therefrom,
S! (UIS +S. S! (UIS
'CTS.
.elicisimo contracted ! marriages, .elicisimo married Virginia Sulit but she died E6
childrenF, .elicisimo married +err) *ee #or%in but divorced later on Eone sonF,
.elicisimo married .elicidad San *uis but this time, .elicisimo died Eno childrenF,
-hereafter, .elicidad sought the dissolution of their con;ugal partnership assets and
the settlement of .elicisimoGs estate before the 7-#, >o%ever, one of the children of
.elicisimo in the first marriage, 7odolfo San *uis, filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that .elicidad has no legal personalit) since she %as ;ust a mistress of
.elicisimo, the latter being legall) married to +err) *ee, -he 7-# ruled in favor of
7odolfo, >o%ever, #A reversed,
ISSUE. 8&0 .elicidad has the legal personalit) to file the petition for letters of
administrationLLL
RU(I!G. N2S,
Anent the issue of respondent .elicidadGs legal personalit) to file the petition for
letters of administration, %e must first resolve the issue of %hether a .ilipino %ho is
divorced b) his alien spouse abroad ma) validl) remarr) under the #ivil #ode,
considering that .elicidadGs marriage to .elicisimo %as solemni(ed on 1une :A, 19B,
or before the .amil) #ode took effect on August !, 19CC, In resolving this issue, %e
need not retroactivel) appl) the provisions of the .amil) #ode, particularl) Art, :6,
par, (:$ considering that there is sufficient ;urisprudential basis allo%ing us to rule in
the affirmative,
-he case of Van 5orn v, 7omillo, 1r,
D:
involved a marriage bet%een a foreigner and
his .ilipino %ife, %hich marriage %as subse4uentl) dissolved through a divorce
obtained abroad b) the latter, #laiming that the divorce %as not valid under "hilippine
la%, the alien spouse alleged that his interest in the properties from their con;ugal
partnership should be protected, -he #ourt, ho%ever, recogni(ed the validit) of the
divorce and held that the alien spouse had no interest in the properties ac4uired b)
the .ilipino %ife after the divorce, -hus@
In this case, the divorce in 0evada released private respondent from the marriage
from the standards of American la%, under %hich divorce dissolves the marriage. As
stated b) the .ederal Supreme #ourt of the Jnited States in Atherton vs, Atherton, BD
*, 2d, 9B, 99@
<-he purpose and effect of a decree of divorce from the bond of matrimon) b) a
competent ;urisdiction are to change the e3isting status or domestic relation of
husband and %ife, and to free them both from the bond, -he marriage tie, %hen thus
severed as to one part), ceases to bind either, A husband %ithout a %ife, or a %ife
%ithout a husband, is unkno%n to the la%, 8hen the la% provides, in the nature of a
penalt), that the guilt) part) shall not marr) again, that part), as %ell as the other, is
still absolutel) freed from the bond of the former marriage,<
-hus, pursuant to his national la%, private respondent is no longer the husband of
petitioner, >e %ould have no standing to sue in the case belo% as petitionerGs
husband entitled to e3ercise control over con;ugal assets, As he is bound b) the
5ecision of his o%n countr)Gs #ourt, %hich validl) e3ercised ;urisdiction over him, and
%hose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped b) his o%n representation
before said #ourt from asserting his right over the alleged con;ugal propert),
As to the effect of the divorce on the .ilipino %ife, the #ourt ruled that she should no
longer be considered married to the alien spouse, .urther, she should not be re4uired
to perform her marital duties and obligations, It held@
To maintain7 as private respondent does7 that7 under our laws7 petitioner has to
be considered still married to private respondent and still sub>ect to a wifeLs
obli8ations under rticle 9D57 et. se1. of the Civil Code cannot be >ust. "etitioner
should not be obliged to live together %ith, observe respect and fidelit), and render
support to private respondent, -he latter should not continue to be one of her heirs
%ith possible rights to con;ugal propert), She should not be discriminated a8ainst
in her own countr* if the ends of >ustice are to be served,
Appl)ing the above doctrine in the instant case, the divorce decree allegedl) obtained
b) +err) *ee %hich absolutel) allo%ed .elicisimo to remarr), %ould have vested
.elicidad %ith the legal personalit) to file the present petition as .elicisimoGs surviving
spouse, >o%ever, the records sho% that there is insufficient evidence to prove the
validit) of the divorce obtained b) +err) *ee as %ell as the marriage of respondent
and .elicisimo under the la%s of the J,S,A,
-herefore, this case should be remanded to the trial court for further reception of
evidence on the divorce decree obtained b) +err) *ee and the marriage of
respondent and .elicisimo,
2ven assuming that .elicisimo %as not capacitated to marr) respondent in 19B,
nevertheless, %e find that the latter has the legal personalit) to file the sub;ect petition
for letters of administration, as she ma) be considered the co=o%ner of .elicisimo as
regards the properties that %ere ac4uired through their ;oint efforts during their
cohabitation,
-he regime of limited co=o%nership of propert) governing the union of parties %ho are
not legall) capacitated to marr) each other, but %ho nonetheless live together as
husband and %ife, applies to properties ac4uired during said cohabitation in
proportion to their respective contributions, #o=o%nership %ill onl) be up to the e3tent
Page 49 of
51
of the proven actual contribution of mone), propert) or industr), Absent proof of the
e3tent thereof, their contributions and corresponding shares shall be presumed to be
e4ual,
CoCownership
%#E, +. C
CariJo vs CariJo
.acts@ Santiagio #arino contracted : marriages during his liftetime, -he 1
st
%as %ith
Susan 0icdao and the :
nd
%as %ith Susan Nee (hindi s)a mahilig sa mga Susan eh
nohL >aha$, 8hen Santiago died, both Susan 0icdao and Susan Nee filed claims for
monetar) benefits and financial assistance from the offices in %hich Santiago %orked
for (he %as a police$,
Susan Nee filed a case for the collection of a sum of mone) against Susan
0icdao for some benefits she received, Susan 0icdao did not file her ans%er and %as
declared in default, Susan Nee admits that her marriage to Santiago took place
%ithout first obtaining a ;udicial declaration of nullit) on the marriage of Santiago to
Susan 0icdao, >o%ever, Susan Nee argued that the 1
st
marriage %as void ab initio
because it %as solemni(ed %ithout the re4uired marriage license, She presented the
marriage certificate of Santiago and Susan 0icdao %hich bears no marriage license
number, In addition, a certification from the local civil registrar sho%ed that the) had
no record of the marriage license,
Issue@ 8hether Susan Nee is entitled to the monetar) benefits she is claiming from
Susan 0icdaoL
>eld@ 1$ In this case, the marriage of Susan 0icdao and Santiago does not fall %ithin
the marriages e3empt from the license re4uirement, 5espite this ho%ever, the records
reveal that their marriage %as solemni(ed %ithout a marriage license, As such, their
marriage is void ab initio,
>o%ever, this does not automaticall) mean that the :
nd
marriage is alread)
valid, Jnder artBA of the famil) code, for purposes of remarriage, there must first be a
prior ;udicial declaration of nullit) of a previous marriage, 2ven though the 1
st
marriage is void, the parties %ill still have to %ait for the declaration other%ise the :
nd
marriage %ill also be void, >ence, since Susan NeeGs marriage to Santiago %as
solemni(ed %ithout first obtaining a ;udicial decree declaring the earlier marriage void,
theirs is also void ab initio,
:$ &ne of the effects of the declaration of nullit) is the separation of propert)
of the spouses, #onsidering that the : marriages are void ab initio, the applicable
propert) regime %onGt be absolute communit) nor con;ugal partnership, -he
marriages are governed b) Art1B and 1BC of the .# on "ropert) 7egime of Jnions
8ithout +arriage,
Jnder art, 1BC refers to the propert) regime of bigamous marriages,
adulterous relationships,,,etc, Jnder this regime, the propert) ac4uired b) the parties
through their actual *oint contribution shall belong to the co=o%nership, 8ages and
salaries earned b) each part) belong to him or her e3clusivel),
#onsidering that the marriage of Susan Nee and Santiago is bigamous
having been solemni(ed during the subsistence of another marriage %hich is
presumed to be valid, article 1BC applies,
-he disputed claims in this case are clearl) renumerations, incentives and
benefits from governmental agencies b) the deceased as a police officer, Jnless
proof to the contrar) is sho%n, it cannot be said that Susan Nee contributed mone),
propert) or industr) in the ac4uisition of these monetar) benefits, >ence, the) are not
o%ned in common O the) belong to the deceased alone and Susan Nee has no right
to claim them,
/) intestate succession, these death benefits shall pass to the legal heirs,
/ut since Susan )ee is not legal %ife, she is not a legal heir,
!$ Article 1B govern the propert) regime of Santiago and Susan 0icdao (1
st
null marriage$, -his article applies to unions of parties %ho are legall) capacitated and
not barred b) an) impediment to marr) but %hose marriage is nonetheless void for
other reasons,
Jnder this article, %ages and salaries earned b) either part) during the
cohabitation shall be o%ned b) the parties in e4ual shares and %ill be divided e4uall)
bet%een them even if onl) one part) earned the %ages and the other did not
contribute, -hus, even if the disputed death benefits %ere earned b) Santiago alone,
art1B creates a co=o%nership entitling Susan 0icdao to Z share thereof,
Page 50 of
51

Civrevdigests Midterms

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Civrevdigests Midterms

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

CIVREV DIGESTS MIDTERMS (DEAN DEL CASTILLO)

When laws become effective

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen